IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 59 of 189 · 5,670 total
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing obviousness over Kinde and Miner and citing a new claim‑construction that broadens the scope to cellular DNA.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate multiple claims of Foundation Medicine’s ’830 cancer‑sequencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and NGS analysis.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate Guardant Health’s 30‑claim DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition requests institution of the IPR.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 29‑claim ‘306 patent on the basis that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt, and that Guardant misled the examiner. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health’s ’699 patent on duplex consensus sequencing is challenged by Tempus AI, which alleges the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms and Dialect's IPR dispute was resolved through a settlement with Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a 29‑day stay of all deadlines to allow dismissal filings.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million, granting a non‑exclusive license and ending all related litigation.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.
Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.
Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate UBC’s 10,751,029 ultrasound‑image‑analysis patent, asserting anticipation by Krishnan and obviousness over Chen, Aase and Wu. All 30 claims are challenged under §§102 and 103.
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,313,385. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’916 patent covering cfDNA‑based microsatellite instability detection. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of Schmitt, Forshew, Porreca, and Sacko references.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
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.