US PTAB IP Litigation

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01377

POSCO has filed an authorized response seeking Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal’s steel patent. The petitioner argues the Board’s reliance on Fintiv precedent and lack of overlap with parallel ITC proceedings makes institution improper.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01494

Director Review requests were issued for IPR2024-01493 and IPR2024-01494, limiting petitioner responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.

ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.

· IPR2024-01445

ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,890,925 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board granted the termination, citing its policy of encouraging settlement.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01465

The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs challenging Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent, leaving the institution denials in place.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01377

ArcelorMittal seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑25 of its high‑strength steel patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should have denied institution.

Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.

· IPR2024-01443

Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01376

ArcelorMittal has filed Director Review requests for two IPRs, and POSCO has five days to submit a limited response without new evidence.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01375

EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.

Deere & Company v.Davidâ€™s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.

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

· IPR2025-00002

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.

Deere & Company v.Davidâ€™s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company requested a Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against David’s Dozer V‑Loc System’s patent. The Director denied the request, leaving the original denial in place.

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

· IPR2024-01439

Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

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

· IPR2024-01439

Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB’s final written decision on its presentation‑dongle patent, arguing the Board wrongly discounted a multi‑patent license and commercial‑success evidence. The petition requests director review to reinstate the patent’s validity.

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

· IPR2024-01438

Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs challenging its patent, and the Board has set a tight deadline for Yealink to respond without new evidence.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

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

· IPR2024-01437

Barco N.V. moved to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01437, arguing that the licensing and financial information it submitted is highly confidential. The motion cites Argentum factors and prior PTAB decisions to justify sealing.

FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01374

Fujifilm and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their IPR dispute, requesting a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within two months.

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

· IPR2024-01437

Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs against Yealink. The petitioner must file a concise response within five business days, without new evidence.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01406

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology opposes RAI Strategic Holdings' Director Review request, arguing that RAI introduced a new Fintiv argument after institution, contrary to USPTO guidance, and that the Board already addressed all raised issues.

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

· IPR2024-01436

Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision for U.S. Patent 10,762,002, arguing that the Board undervalued a key licensing agreement with Crestron and commercial‑success evidence. The petition requests Director Review to reinstate the patent's validity.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC

· IPR2024-01369

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of four IPRs targeting Secure Wi‑Fi patents, leaving the institution denials in place.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.

STARA S.A.-INDÃšSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.