Patent Cases

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00642, arguing that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights. The petition contends the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied “settled expectations.”

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.

patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung filed a petition asking the USPTO Director to rehear the denial of institution for several IPRs targeting iCashe’s patent. The request challenges the Director’s discretionary denial under § 314(a).

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 3, 2025

Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon and AlmondNet have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,494,904, which covers online advertising technologies. The Board is asked to end the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their OLED display patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00029

AdvanCell has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sciencons’ 603 patent covering a radioisotope generator for targeted alpha‑therapy, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement. The petition seeks cancellation of all 20 claims.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00680

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung has filed a petition for IPR against iCashe’s 9,208,423 patent covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on Doughty, Bursch and Fox references to argue obviousness under §103 and contends that discretionary denial does not apply.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-00655

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s ’156 patent covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. The petition relies on Doughty and Fox as prior art and argues that the examiner failed to consider these references, making the claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate iCashe’s 8,403,219 patent covering smartcard integration in mobile phones. The petition relies on the Fox and Takekawa references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent instituted · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00029

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.

patent instituted · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon successfully challenged the '904 patent, leading to its institution after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The challenge focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding automated profile collection and data targeting methods.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00680

Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated obviousness against certain claims of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337) in a PTAB Final Written Decision. The Board found that Claims 2 and 3 were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000323

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK

Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of juicers and registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 (relating to a juice extractor), sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for patent infringement regarding the 'AUTO10' slow juicer sold under the 'Kuvings' brand. The Local Division Mannheim separated the proceedings concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom pending the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Following that decision, the court held that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, ordering damages and an information/accounting obligation.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000322

expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000321

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.

Hurom Co., Ltd. sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor, concerning NUC's slow juicer marketed as 'AUTO10'. The proceedings were separated from the main action to address the national parts of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Polish, Spanish, and UK national parts of the patent.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000320

Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court revoked an ex-parte Saisie (evidence preservation) order that had been issued in favor of Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. concerning EP 3 281 580. The court found that the inspection had been executed against a separate legal entity (Palo Alto Networks (Germany) GmbH) rather than against the named Defendant, and that the Applicant had breached its duty of candor by failing to inform the court of this material change in circumstances.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000319

Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000318

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.

This is a rectification order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 2 October 2025 in patent infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. The court, on its own motion, corrected paragraph 6 of its earlier order dated 29 September 2025 to fix a clerical error and a calculation error, directing the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees paid, amounting to €14,400.