US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00896

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.

Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-00937

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00917

Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.

patent instituted · Apr 28, 2025

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00918

Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00901

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.

patent instituted · Apr 28, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00896

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple Inc. against Apex Beam Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Chen and 3GPP renders at least one claim obvious.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 28, 2025

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00917

The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the solar cell technology. The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over Chang in view of Jin, or other combinations.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 28, 2025

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00918

The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.

patent · Apr 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-00868

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,979,128. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s uplink cancellation signaling patent.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent denied · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

patent denied · Apr 25, 2025

Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.