Bird Buddy, Inc. v. Perkins, Frederick

Juniper Networks, Inc.vsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC

Monarch’s response to Juniper’s IPR argues that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,130,775 are not obvious, emphasizing that prior‑art references do not disclose a shared link between two pseudo‑wires.

Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd.vsMHL Custom, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.

Be Smarter, LLC et al.vsYondr, Inc.

Be Smarter petitions the PTAB to invalidate Yondr's ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, citing prior art that anticipates and renders the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.

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

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’597 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of Lee, Stacey, Zhou, and Choudhury. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.