Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Genzyme Corporation et al.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.vsNatera, Inc.

The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya LLC

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled eight IPRs. The Board terminated the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

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.

Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.