Tempus AI, Inc. v. Guardant Health Inc.

Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC

ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC

Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.

Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,596,517. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.

BabyBjorn AB et al.vsThe Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.

BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.