US PTAB IP Litigation

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00194

The USPTO denied Digital Global Systems' request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against DeepSig. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.

patent instituted

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

GoSecure seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of two parallel IPRs filed by CrowdStrike, arguing procedural abuse, improper claim construction, and lack of exceptional circumstances.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.

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

· IPR2025-00165

Samsung and patent‑owner SiOnyx settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 before a trial began. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00120

Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00063

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2025-00062

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion asking the PTB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, separating them from the public patent file.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00116

Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00116, arguing the Board’s findings were proper and the Fintiv factors inapplicable.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00116

The PTAB denied Abbott Laboratories' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including IPR2025-00116 covering Miracor Medical's patent 11,754,077 B1. The institution decisions remain in effect.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00061 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,792,007, citing covenants not to sue and early‑stage proceedings.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00114

Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00058

An exhibit email shows that Google, the petitioner, does not oppose Multifold International’s request to replace a previously filed Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, asking the Board to accept a corrected filing without additional fees.

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

· IPR2025-00180

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2025-00177

Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00057

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00057

Amazon’s second request for Director Review of the PTAB’s claim‑construction on its streaming‑technology patent was challenged by B.S.D. Crown. The patent owner contends the Board correctly applied a conjunctive reading and that Amazon waived its right to reply, leaving no basis for review.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

Jumio filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no settled expectations justify discretionary denial.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00049

The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.