Page 57 of 291 · 8,722 total

patent · Jun 30, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01164

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.

patent · Jun 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC

· IPR2025-01222

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.

patent · Jun 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC

· IPR2025-01223

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patent · Jun 30, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01221

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.

patent denied · Jun 30, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01221

The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.

patent instituted · Jun 30, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01164

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.

patent denied · Jun 27, 2025

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

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

· PGR2025-00052

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,264,345, which claims thousands of modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01147

Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01127

Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent’s ’974 nasal neuromodulation patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over Townley, Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290, and the Angeles console.

patent · Jun 27, 2025

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.

patent instituted · Jun 27, 2025

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

· PGR2025-00052

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.

patent instituted · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01215, allowing Apple Inc. to challenge Vampire Labs' patent 8358103.

patent instituted · Jun 27, 2025

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01179 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This decision allows the case to proceed to trial.

patent denied · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01147

The USPTO Director denied institution for several IPR proceedings involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will take place.

patent denied · Jun 27, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01127

The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.

patent · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.

patent · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.

patent · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01195

Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.

patent denied · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01195

The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review petitions, including one concerning Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation's patent 7704721.

patent denied · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.

patent · Jun 25, 2025

American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.

· IPR2025-01176

American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.

patent · Jun 25, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01126

Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

1 •••565758•••291
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →