Patent Cases

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00463

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00462

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,451,339.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five related IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent. The petition also notes concurrent P‑TACTS submissions.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung's Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks due‑process and APA merit.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00462

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their PTAB dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate four IPRs. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement agreements confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00463

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that terminates the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.

patent denied · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

Court decision.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

patent denied · Jan 23, 2025

The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

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

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00516

Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00463

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 digital‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

EP Family Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Office Kick's U.S. Patent 11,910,926 covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over six prior‑art references.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

EP Family Corp. has filed a petition to cancel Office Kick’s ’843 patent covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung has filed an IPR petition against Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent, arguing that all challenged claims are obvious over prior art and urging the Board to institute the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00462

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ 8,886,181 patent covering seamless Wi‑Fi‑to‑cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.