Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v. Phelan Group, LLC

Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC

ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATIONvsWorcester Polytechnic Institute

Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.

MPL Brands NV, Inc.vsBuzzBallz, LLC

The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.

AT&T Services Inc. et al.vsASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.