Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v. Phelan Group, LLC

Google LLC et al.vsWithrow Networks Inc.

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Withrow Networks' 2020 multimedia streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc.vsSfara, Inc.

Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.

Vertiv CorporationvsValtrus Innovations Ltd.

Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation

Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.