US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

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

patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement confidential.

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

Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.

JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00859

JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over early‑2000s container technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, alleging obviousness over the Callender patent. The petition argues that Callender is prior art under §102(e) and renders the claims unpatentable under §103.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2025-00885

ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations of OS functionality. The petition relies on prior‑art references (Ely, Levine, Thekkath, Eggert) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing that the Blaser, Calder and Schmidt-449 references render the claims obvious under §103. The petition also asserts that any discretionary denial would be improper.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and lack of written‑description support. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier container‑virtualization technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools Inc.

· IPR2025-00724

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and anticipation by Klein's own 2019 news release, while also challenging the patent’s priority date due to added matter.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon initiated an IPR against Datonics LLC's patent (US 10984445) concerning profile-based behavioral targeting. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable as obvious over prior art combinations.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 18, 2025

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2025-00885

The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00847

Court decision.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

TSMC and Apple seek a director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, settled‑expectations, and material examiner errors. They argue the government shutdown alters the Fintiv calculus, making referral appropriate.