US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-01341

TikTok’s Director Review request to invalidate a media‑aggregation patent was denied. The Board found TikTok’s claim mappings incoherent and noted the introduction of new, unauthorized arguments.

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

· IPR2024-01341

TikTok has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a panel's denial of institution for its challenge to a media‑feed aggregation patent, arguing the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier decisions on identical claims.

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

· IPR2024-01404

Harbor Island Dynamic has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its TSV patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial factors related to a pending district‑court trial date.

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

· IPR2024-01404

The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.

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

· IPR2024-01464

The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.

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

· IPR2024-01337

Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.

FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01374

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.

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

· IPR2024-01402

Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.

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

· IPR2024-01402

Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.

Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.

· IPR2024-01322

Google successfully defended its IPR on a Bluetooth data‑exchange patent, and the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, finding the new arguments unsupported.

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over a storage‑container patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv factors and ignored claim overlap with a parallel ITC proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01323

Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,070,133 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2024-01357

Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.

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

· IPR2024-01317

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.

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

· IPR2024-01377

ArcelorMittal and POSCO are engaged in Director Review proceedings for two IPRs. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. A deadline of five business days has been set for filing.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01432

The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.

Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.

· IPR2024-01443

Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,055,023 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.

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

· IPR2024-01396

Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have settled their district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.