US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00866

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of VB Assets’ ’681 patent covering a cooperative conversational voice interface. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including SmartKom, Kobsa, Barbara, Ross, O’Neill and Franco.

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

· IPR2025-00833

Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.

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

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,472,427, asserting that the driver‑authentication system is anticipated or obvious over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00927

Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.

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

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple Inc. successfully overcame the Patent Owner's attempt to deny the IPR, leading to the institution of the case against Apex Beam Technologies LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple can prove obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Cirik and Wu.

patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple Inc.'s IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's '695 patent covering 5G NR uplink cancellation has been instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds over prior art references Ying and Yang for Claim 1, setting up a trial on all 20 claims.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 24, 2025

The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Court decision.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00856

Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 claims.