US PTAB IP Litigation

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

patent denied · Nov 15, 2024

ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Court decision.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.