Executive Summary
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Related Cases
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al.vsDowning Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsXR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbHvsEllodi Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.