US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-01420

Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01287

Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2024-01421

Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01351

Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any merits were decided.

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

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.

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

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.

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

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot and Security Technology settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,562,402. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

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

· IPR2024-01369

Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defends the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board’s discretionary analysis of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01351

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to end the proceeding before any merits are decided.

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

· IPR2024-01465

Cerence Operating Company opposes Google’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The patent owner emphasizes due‑process compliance and the correct application of Fintiv factors.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01407

Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2024-01345

Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01407

Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.

FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01374

The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.

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

· IPR2024-01406

The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.

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

· IPR2024-01493

The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.

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

· IPR2024-01406

RAI Strategic Holdings seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Kangvape’s disposable vaporizer patent, arguing that a parallel ITC proceeding should preclude institution under the Fintiv factors.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2024-01405

Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Harbor Island Dynamic over U.S. Patent 9,245,826. The response argues that the Board’s claim construction and obviousness findings were correct and that no Director Review grounds exist.

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

· IPR2024-01464

Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2024-01405

Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.

TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.

· IPR2024-01343

TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.