Patent Cases

patent denied · Feb 6, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

patent denied · Feb 6, 2025

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the “settled expectations” standard is a lawful discretionary factor and that Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments fail.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 6, 2025

Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 6, 2025

Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 6, 2025

The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SoundClear’s 9,031,259 patent, alleging that the claimed speech‑processing system is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists 15 grounds covering VAD, DOA, adaptive filtering and microphone‑array arrangements.

United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01076

United Microelectronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,579,227 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple high‑k gate dielectric references.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC

· IPR2025-01088

Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01070

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent settled · Feb 6, 2025

GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.

Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. v.Nikita Dubey Rai

Madras High Court · 155425917

Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nikita Dubey Rai, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' and associated copyrights in the field of educational services. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'LEARNING EINSTEINS'. However, both parties amicably settled their dispute through a joint memorandum of compromise dated February 6, 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000961

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC

This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson in proceedings before the Local Division Munich. The court allowed the preliminary objection, holding that a preliminary objection can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies to prevent the same parties from bringing the same validity dispute twice before the same division (lis pendens). The second counterclaim for revocation was rejected as inadmissible.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000960

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000959

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC

The Local Division Munich allowed a preliminary objection filed by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 brought by Ericsson. The court held that a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP can be raised against a counterclaim for revocation, and that Article 33(2) UPCA applies a fortiori when the same parties bring the same action twice before the same division, resulting in the second counterclaim being rejected as inadmissible due to lis pendens.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000958

Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and Warmcook

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook regarding European Patent EP3155936. The defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation, and Hurom had applied to unconditionally amend the patent. The order addresses Hurom's request under Rule 36 RoP for further exchanges of written pleadings after the defendants raised new arguments on infringement in their Rejoinder.

patent denied · Feb 5, 2025

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00957

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00921

Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00921

Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00904

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00904

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC