US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01094

The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01094

Pictiva Displays requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision finding Samsung’s OLED patent claims unpatentable. The Owner alleges the Board ignored contradictory expert testimony and introduced a new obviousness argument in reply, violating procedural rules.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01139

Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01083

Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01002

Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01083

Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-00997

AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.

patent instituted

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01066

The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

The IPRs concerning Patent 8,924,543 were terminated after Verizon Wireless and other carriers reached a settlement with Headwater Research. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.

patent all challenged claims upheld

Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00996

Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their IPR dispute over wireless charging patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. No merits were decided.

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged WLAN routing claims non‑obvious, emphasizing that unclaimed details like transcoding are routine. The Director’s request for review was denied, leaving the Board’s decision intact.

patent denied

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

· IPR2024-01133

The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01046

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have agreed to settle their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within 45 days, pausing all court deadlines.

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.

Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01075

Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,506,554 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.

· IPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.

patent denied

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-00992

AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-00987

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00987 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,905,742. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

patent denied

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00990

Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00990

Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.