Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Cerence Operating Company

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision upholding claims 2‑5 and 7‑11 of its 3D NAND patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards, especially regarding the Park and Shibata references. A reversal could invalidate the Board’s findings and affect Micron’s memory‑technology portfolio.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC

PTAB denied Samsung’s Director Review requests to overturn institution denials for five IPRs, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation

Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.

Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.

Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.