US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00114

Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00114

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art standards and publications.

NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00161

NJOY has filed an IPR petition challenging JUUL’s U.S. Pat. 12,156,533 covering nicotine‑salt e‑cigarette formulations. The petition argues anticipation under §102 and obviousness under §103 based on the Sebastian and Lechuga‑Ballesteros references.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

Headwater Research announced a partial settlement with Apple, licensing its patents and dropping all Apple‑related claims in the Texas district court case against Amazon defendants.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 25, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2025

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.

Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.

Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00160

Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate key claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning robot patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier Chinese and U.S. robotic cleaning disclosures. The petition targets claims 1‑8, 11‑14, and 19 and seeks an IPR institution.

Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00159

Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.

Wybotics Inc. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00158

Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.