Apple Inc. v. HBCU Messaging US LP

IPR2026-00107

Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00107
Judge(s)
Ken B. Barrett, Georginna W. Braden, Stephen E. Belisle
Decision Date
31 October 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2025-00785, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Apple Inc.’s petition to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11991601. Apple challenged all 14 claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, relying on three prior‑art references (Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski) in two combination scenarios. The Board concluded that Apple’s petition did not meet the “reasonable likelihood” standard because it failed to articulate with particularity how a person of ordinary skill would combine the teachings of the references, and therefore denied institution of the IPR.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs HBCU Messaging US LP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01326

Microsoft CorporationvsProxense, LLC

Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.

patentPGR2025-00028

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLCvsPayRange LLC.

The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.

patentIPR2025-00278

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

MES, Inc. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar statute and unnecessary duplication with an MDL.

patentIPR2025-00285

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsCollision Communications, Inc.

The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.

patentIPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.

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