FedEx Corporation et al. v. VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.

IPR2026-00060

FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' clustered‑computing licensing patent, arguing obviousness over Sparks and Bram references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00060
Filing Date
14 October 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01373

Nikon Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.

patentIPR2025-00713

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.

patentIPR2025-01375

SNAP INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.

patentIPR2024-00539

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.

Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.

patentIPR2024-00712

AT&T Corp. et al.vsSoto, Alexander et al.

AT&T and the Soto patent owners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,238,754 covering passive optical network technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR, requesting the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call