US PTAB IP Litigation

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2024-01312

Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.

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

· IPR2024-01132

BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to file a dismissal stipulation. The dispute will be resolved without further litigation.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.

· IPR2024-01310

SportsCastr requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1‑11 of its video‑streaming patent unpatentable. The Owner asserts the Board ignored the “webserver” limitation, an error that warrants reversal.

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).

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

· IPR2024-01357

The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01299

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01279

Bitsgap Holding and related crypto trading entities settled their IPR disputes with Intercurrency Software. The Board granted a motion to withdraw the petitions and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement as confidential.

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

· IPR2024-01217

Samsung and ASUS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01299

Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01238

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.

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

· IPR2024-01276

3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.

Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC

· IPR2024-01294

Garmin and Saris Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,434,394 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.

· IPR2024-01322

The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01293

Bitsgap and co‑owners filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against Intercurrency Software’s foreign‑exchange trading patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the withdrawal request pending the patent owner’s mandatory notices.

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

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot filed a response defending the PTAB’s institution decision, asserting that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding with the IPR and that the Board correctly interpreted claim language.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.

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

· IPR2024-01266

3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.

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

· IPR2024-01273

Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.