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

PGR2025-00006

Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00006
Filing Date
12 October 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00758

Qorvo, Inc.vsCornell Research Foundation Inc.

Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.

patentIPR2025-00058

Google LLC et al.vsMultifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.

patentIPR2024-01228

CommScope Technologies LLC et al.vsBelden Canada ULC et al.

CommScope Technologies LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 B2 is likely unpatentable over prior art references Fukui and Sedor. The Board instituted the IPR on all 47 challenged claims based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

patentIPR2024-01219

Deltran USA LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

Deltran USA LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's patent (11667203) covering jump start/battery charging systems. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite the Patent Owner's counterarguments regarding technical limitations.

patentIPR2024-01115

Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references Ahn and Chaudhri.

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 →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call