US PTAB IP Litigation

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.

patent denied

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

· IPR2024-01416

Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

· IPR2024-01416

The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01287

Declaration of Kerry Litvin submitted by Iarnach Technologies in response to Charter Communications' IPR petition.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2024-01288

Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to termination of both proceedings and confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01285

Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of several IPRs against Motorola Solutions, alleging misapplication of the Fintiv discretionary factors. The petition seeks reversal of the institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.

patent denied

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01375

Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2024-01283

Cisco and Croga Innovations jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a confidential settlement, and the Board granted the termination.

FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01374

Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01314

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.

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

· IPR2024-01433

SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence allowed.

patent denied

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

· IPR2024-01367

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and others settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01280

Ecto World challenges the USPTO’s denial of its IPR on a disposable vaporizer patent, arguing material error and improper use of the Fintiv memo. The petitioner seeks institution of the review.

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

· IPR2024-01366

Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01278

Bitsgap and other crypto platforms settled their IPR dispute with Intercurrency Software, leading the PTAB to dismiss the challenges to patent 10,776,863.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.

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

· IPR2024-01368

Samsung has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. The Director’s decision on the review is pending.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.

Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01280

Ecto World and SV3 seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings’ ‘202 patent covering disposable vaporizer devices. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework and improperly limited its review to two pages of the petition.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC