US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· PGR2025-00017

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled multiple U.S., German and Chinese patent lawsuits via a comprehensive license and non‑assertion agreement covering several KPN patents.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00477

Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.

· IPR2025-00472

Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00451

AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.

Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.

· IPR2025-00472

Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.

patent denied · Jan 17, 2025

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00476

Maxell, Ltd. opposes Coretronic and Optoma's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,549,226, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success due to flawed claim constructions and insufficient prior‑art support. The Patent Owner seeks denial of institution.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

The USPTO Director denied Cambridge Industries' request to review the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Applied Optoelectronics' patents, leaving the prior institution denials in place.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 17, 2025

Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.

· IPR2025-00464

The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over prior art references Gwozdz, Meezan ’962, and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.

patent denied · Jan 17, 2025

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00451

AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision was denied after the Board found the petitioner failed to justify inconsistent claim‑construction positions across the IPR and district court.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its data‑analytics patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored required consistency in claim construction and the indefiniteness of claim terms, making the institution improper.

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

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under PTAB rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp petitioned an IPR on BirchTech's patents. A settlement was reached with MidAmerican Energy, leading the Board to terminate the IPR for MidAmerican while keeping it open for the other petitioners.

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

The PTAB terminated the IPRs against BirchTech's patent as to WEC Energy Group following a settlement, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and other petitioners.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the patent owner's Director Review request. They argue the petitions are timely, lack real‑party or privity issues, and that the Board is the most efficient forum for resolving the mercury‑control patent challenges.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and BirchTech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement‑driven termination.

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

· IPR2025-00274

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.

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

· IPR2025-00274

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

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.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC