Apple Inc. et al. v. SiOnyx, LLC

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.

The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.

Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures II

LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'

Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.vsCLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.

The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.

Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.