US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-00810

Microsoft and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110 B2, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-00841

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.

patent instituted

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.

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

· IPR2024-00890

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom jointly filed a request to have their settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations.

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

· IPR2024-00828

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.

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

· IPR2024-00847

The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00847, leaving the institution of Nokia's patent 7,532,808 in place.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00785

Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.

EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00842

EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00782

Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.

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

· IPR2024-00805

Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.

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

· IPR2024-00797

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00784

Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-00794

Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.

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

· IPR2024-00805

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,679,289 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion stresses settlement, early‑stage status, and judicial economy.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2024-00777

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00782

Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.

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

· IPR2024-00777

Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.

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

· IPR2024-00790

Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on claim 4 of Yangtze Memory’s 3D memory patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to demonstrate a motivation or benefit for the alleged modification.

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

· IPR2024-00839

The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.

· IPR2024-00829

Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

· IPR2024-00794

The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.