Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al.vsSung, Chien-Min

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, defending the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings that rely on the prior‑art reference Sung'026 for its CMP pad‑dressing technology.

Juniper Networks, Inc.vsPortsmouth Network Corporation

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.

Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT argues that the IPR on Haemonetics’ blood‑a­pheresis patent should remain instituted, emphasizing that the disputed “controller” term is undisputed and that prior‑art devices disclose it.

Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.