Cisco Systems, Inc. v. QPRIVACY USA LLC

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.

Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al.vsRAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.