US PTAB IP Litigation

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

patent instituted

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco Systems responded to WSOU Investments’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in IPR2025-00188. The petitioner argues the Board properly considered all relevant factors and exercised discretion, so the review should be denied.

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

· IPR2025-00230

The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the 7,711,443 patent owned by Zaxcom. The institution rulings therefore remain in effect.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00141

Skechers petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for Nike’s shoe‑upper patent, arguing the Board misapplied §325(d) to foreign‑language references and ignored prior PTAB findings. The request highlights issues with unintelligible translations and contradictory precedent.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have settled their dispute over a modular switchgear patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00201

Liberty Mutual filed a joint motion to terminate its IPR against Intellectual Ventures I’s patent 7,949,785.

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

· IPR2025-00138

The PTAB denied the Director Review requests for several IPRs, including the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,181,931, leaving the earlier institution denials in place.

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

· IPR2025-00138

Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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

· IPR2025-00137

Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

· IPR2025-00172

The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.

Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.

· IPR2025-00136

Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00116

Miracor Medical seeks a Director’s discretionary denial of Abbott’s institution of IPR2025‑00116, arguing the petition lacks particularity, misuses claim constructions, and violates word‑count rules. The Board had previously granted institution of the IPR.

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00120

Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00135

Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Samsung and SiOnyx settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00201

Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.