US PTAB IP Litigation

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01424

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their IPR disputes covering four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00027

The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-00001

Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01424

Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01424

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have settled their dispute over a lighting patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01423

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00027

QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01423

Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight Limited have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01423 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination when parties settle.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00039

Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential, invoking 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to separate the agreements from the public patent file and limit disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01422

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,845,044 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Tecan Group AG files a Director Review request to overturn an institution decision that could invalidate its DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the panel misapplied law, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and ignored PTAB policy on parallel petitions.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01422

Aputure and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under federal law. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to limit public disclosure.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01502

The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-00001

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01425

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Mullen Industries that Director Review requests for IPR2025-00018 and three related IPRs have been received. Google may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01439

Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal portions of its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01439, asserting that the material contains highly confidential licensing and financial information. The Board must decide whether the confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to a complete record.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01504

Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Tecan's DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the Board acted properly and that expert testimony was appropriate.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot and Security Technology reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01420 covering patent 11,562,402. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions.

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01504

Tecan Genomics filed a comprehensive set of objections to Integrated DNA Technologies’ evidentiary exhibits in IPR2024‑01504, citing multiple FRE rules to block hearsay, irrelevant, and unauthenticated material. The objections were timely filed after the institution decision.