MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v. --

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.

MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.

iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al.vsASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsIntent IQ, LLC

Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.

Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLCvsExela Pharma Sciences, LLC

Nexus Pharmaceuticals' PGR challenge against Exela Pharma Sciences was denied institution because the arguments regarding enablement, written description, and obviousness were largely identical to those previously presented during prosecution. The Board found that the Patent Owner successfully demonstrated how process controls overcome prior rejections, leading to a denial of the petition under § 325(d).