UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v. MES, Inc.

US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.

Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsLionra Technologies Limited

Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.

Under Armour, Inc.vsAthalonz, LLC

Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's shoe patent (10,674,786), challenging claims 1-8 based on obviousness over prior art like Kim and Dufour.