US PTAB IP Litigation

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

The PTAB denied Tessell, Inc.'s petition for rehearing of the Director Review order that had vacated the institution of an IPR against Nutanix, Inc.'s patent 11,860,818. The decision leaves the prior order in place and no claims were examined.

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

· IPR2025-00264

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,845,167 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00264. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the fact that the Board has not yet decided the merits.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00317

The Board denied Verizon Wireless and co‑petitioners’ request for Director Review of an institution denial, finding no statutory basis and rejecting new arguments. The institution denial based on a holistic Fintiv analysis therefore stands.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00317

The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.

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

· IPR2025-00230

The PTAB found all challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable for obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2025-00230

The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.

· IPR2025-00255

The Board denied X1 Discovery’s request to extend the deadline for filing a Director Review in three IPRs involving Microsoft, finding no good cause for the late filing.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.

patent instituted

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2025-00260

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Feit Electric’s 8604678 LED patent, covering claims 1 and 11‑14, and ordered consolidation with a related IPR. Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00304

ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.

· IPR2025-00254

The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00250

Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00234

HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).

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

· IPR2025-00232

RØDE Microphones challenges the PTAB’s finding of privity with its subsidiary Lectrosonics, seeking to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process rights.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00243

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.

Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.

· IPR2025-00242

Precision Cancer Technologies has requested a PTAB Director Review of IPR2025-00242. The Patent Owner, Oncoustics, is limited to a brief response within five days, with no new evidence allowed.

Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.

· IPR2025-00242

Precision Cancer Technologies seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on its AI‑driven ultrasound patent. The petitioner claims the Board erred factually and legally by demanding proof beyond the expert testimony that the prior art discloses a single‑frame ultrasound data set.

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

· IPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.