US PTAB IP Litigation

patent denied · Dec 2, 2025

The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.

patent · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

patent instituted · Dec 2, 2025

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Dec 2, 2025

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00114

Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Nov 25, 2025

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00154

The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00154

The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00154

The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.

patent · Nov 25, 2025

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2025

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC