US PTAB IP Litigation

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00865

Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685.

patent instituted

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00788

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00846

The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2024-00810

Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-00921

Amazon and Nokia jointly moved to terminate four inter partes reviews after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.

· IPR2024-00805

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00841

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.

· IPR2024-00791

Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

· IPR2024-00937

Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00840

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00925

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00839

Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.

fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00901

The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH’s patent 11,677,798.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00792

The PTAB denied Micron's petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory's patent 11,468,957. The Board’s original findings remain in effect.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00839

Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB Director to allow a reply brief in IPR2024-00835, arguing that Gomaco introduced new, unsupported arguments about its GT‑3200 paving machine and mischaracterized the record.

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

· IPR2024-00920

The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00797

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2024-00833

The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.

· IPR2024-00829

Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-00848

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC

· IPR2024-00896

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00863

Orca Security Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its cloud‑security patent are unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board relied on new, unsupported evidence from Veselov, violating due‑process rules. The request seeks reversal of the Board’s decision.