US PTAB IP Litigation

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 6, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025

The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025

GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent denied · Nov 6, 2025

GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.

patent · Nov 6, 2025

ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01143

ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.

ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01143

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.

patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.

patent · Nov 5, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.

patent · Nov 5, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent denied · Nov 4, 2025

TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent denied · Nov 4, 2025

Court decision.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).