US PTAB IP Litigation

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

Cerebrum Sensor Technologies files a Director Review petition to vacate the institution of an IPR against Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and indefiniteness arguments violate the Director’s Tesla policy.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 21, 2025

Tire Stickers LLC requests Director Review to vacate the PTAB's institution of an IPR filed by Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner gave conflicting claim constructions in the Board and district court. The request cites recent Director decisions requiring explanation of such inconsistencies.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00624

KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 21, 2025

The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00628

Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00624

KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00614

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 21, 2025

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00616

The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00628

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00024

Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,060,590 covering thousands of engineered PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00614

Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00624

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '590 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB found the claims were overly broad regarding polypeptide scope, requiring undue experimentation for a skilled artisan.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

The Director vacated the institution decision in a patent dispute involving Revvo and Cerebrum, remanding the case for further proceedings after clarifying that petitioners must explain inconsistent claim construction positions across forums.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several prior art references.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR in a dispute involving Tire Stickers LLC and Revvo Technologies, citing Petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal venues.