US PTAB IP Litigation

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01279

Bitsgap Holding and affiliates withdrew their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software after reaching a settlement, prompting the Board to dismiss the proceeding.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01278

Bitsgap Holding and related entities filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software, arguing that the case should be dismissed before any merits are decided.

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

· IPR2024-01407

The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.

Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2024-01277

Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.

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

· IPR2024-01343

The USPTO denied TikTok's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving NTECH's patents, leaving the institution denials in place.

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

· IPR2024-01341

TikTok’s request for a Director Review of the USPTO’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against NTECH Properties was denied. The Board affirmed the original institution denial, leaving the patent challenge unresolved.

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

· IPR2024-01284

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its IPRs on body‑worn and in‑car camera patents, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that bars discretionary denial when a Sotera stipulation exists. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the extensive resources invested in challenging all 160 claims.

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

· IPR2024-01404

Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.

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

· IPR2024-01337

Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.

Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2024-01277

Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC

· IPR2024-01315

The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-01273

Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,785,759 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01268

3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01268

3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,191,648 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01268

3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,191,648 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01364

Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑39 of Varia’s RFID‑related patent are obvious. The Board denied Varia’s request for director review, leaving the unpatentability decision intact.

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

· IPR2024-01323

Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01392

NormShield Inc. filed a motion to terminate the IPR against BitSight Technologies' patent 10805331.

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

· IPR2024-01376

POSCO challenges ArcelorMittal’s steel‑related patent in IPR2024‑01376, defending the Board’s decision to institute the case. The petitioner argues the merits are strong, overlap with parallel ITC proceedings is minimal, and the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01364

Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.

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

· IPR2024-01366

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied the rescinded Vidal memo retroactively. The petitioner alleges abuse of discretion and due‑process violations, arguing the Board’s weighting of Fintiv factors was arbitrary.