IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 134 of 140 · 4,175 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates moved to terminate IPR 2025-00278 after reaching a confidential settlement with Birchtech Corp. The parties seek to keep the settlement agreement sealed under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of DataFeel’s 12,036,174 patent covering percussive massage devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of written description and enablement. It also argues the Board should not invoke the Fintiv discretionary denial provision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to review PayRange’s 2024 patent covering mobile‑device‑driven vending‑machine payments. The petition asserts anticipation, obviousness, and § 101 ineligibility for all 20 claims, citing Low, Arora, Freeny and Casey as prior art.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PayRange’s 2024 mobile‑payment patent covering vending‑machine transactions, arguing obviousness and patent‑ineligibility. The petition also rebuts any discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on enablement and obviousness grounds in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the patent documents supported a broad definition of modified PH20 polypeptides, while noting the petitioner had established a likelihood of prevailing on enablement but failed to prove obviousness.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Applied Optoelectronics Inc.'s patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102). The Board specifically rejected arguments based on prior art references Shen and Soldano regarding optical receiving devices.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.