US PTAB IP Litigation

Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

· IPR2025-00956

Straumann USA, LLC successfully petitioned against Smart Denture Conversions, LLC's patent, leading to institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

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

· IPR2025-00936

Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.

patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00931

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.

patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00782

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 12,021,679 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,139,944 covering downlink control information. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Court decision.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have settled with Advanced Cluster Systems and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, keeping it separate from the public patent file.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Intel and AMD filed a joint motion to keep their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,570,034, leaving Intel as the remaining petitioner.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00046

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.