US PTAB IP Litigation

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

patent terminated or settled · May 2, 2025

Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation and procedural errors warrant discretionary denial.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00577

Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,732,909. The parties cite a settlement agreement and PTAB good‑cause precedent to end the pre‑institution proceeding.

patent denied · May 2, 2025

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00576

Court decision.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

The PTAB Director denied the petition for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00531 and related cases, keeping the institution of Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent in place.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

Court decision.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00576

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 33 claims of ImberaTek’s 2010 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00577

Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7,732,909 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, arguing all 33 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00580

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of ImberaTek’s ’723 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Tuominen967Pub, Capote, and Asahi make the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that Fintiv factors favor institution.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00543

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00544

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,619,578 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D printer force‑detection patent. The challenger alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references, including Warren, Dunn, Calderon and an open‑source RepRap forum thread.

patent instituted · May 2, 2025

Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.

· IPR2025-00510

Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 16 claims in a dispute involving Stratasys's 3D printing technology. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art, specifically Warren.

patent instituted · May 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00936

The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.

patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung argues that the prior‑art Lee and Choudhury teach the same BSS‑color disabling features claimed in the ’163 patent, and urges the PTAB to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review of the institution decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.

· IPR2025-00928

Geotab has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR on patent 8,456,365. The petition argues the Director’s ‘settled expectations’ analysis is unlawful, arbitrary, and exceeds statutory authority.