Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Amazon challenges Nokia's HEVC patent (US 10,536,714) on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petitioner argues that prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, Nakamura, and WD4 teach the claimed methods for reducing redundant motion vector candidates in video coding.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsConcurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.

Aptiv Services US, LLC et al.vsMicrochip Technology, Inc.

Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.