Shuttleslide, LLC v. Sea Swivel Inc.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.

X Corp.vsSterling Computers Corporation

X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.

LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC

The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.

Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC

Samsung’s petition to invalidate a key display patent was denied by the PTAB. The Director affirmed the Board’s discretion under § 314(a), finding no compelling merits and correcting the Board’s interpretation of pre‑AIA prior‑art rules.