US PTAB IP Litigation

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00376

An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00349

Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates petition the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on a coal‑emissions control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied time‑bar analysis. The Patent Owner seeks a discretionary denial of institution.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner's request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and free of undisclosed parties.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00280

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information, effectively ending the proceeding.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

Stingray Group’s petition challenges a late, unauthorized request by patent owner Edwin Hernandez-Mondragon to submit new evidence in IPR2025-00350. The petition argues the request should be denied for untimely filing and rule violations.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable, adopting the petitioner’s claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00264

The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.

patent instituted

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00280

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.

patent denied

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00263

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.

patent denied

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00348

PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies patents.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00278

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00262

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00262, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954 covering cutting‑tool technology.