US PTAB IP Litigation

Hulu LLC et al. v.--

· IPR2024-00787

Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.

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

· IPR2024-00785

The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.

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

· IPR2024-00810

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.

Hulu LLC et al. v.--

· IPR2024-00787

Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑00787 and to keep the settlement agreement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory provisions.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00773

The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving a Greenthread patent on power management circuitry.

Hulu LLC et al. v.--

· IPR2024-00787

Hulu and Capital One settled their IPR dispute with patent owner Implicit, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The Board granted motions to keep the settlement agreements confidential.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00784

Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).

patent instituted

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00767

TikTok’s IPRs were stayed as the PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review to reconsider institution decisions after denying the patent owner’s motion to terminate.

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

· IPR2024-00797

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.

Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2024-00765

Garmin and patent owner Slyde Analytics settled their dispute in IPR2024-00006, resulting in Garmin's termination from the proceeding. The Board treated the settlement agreement as business confidential information.

patent instituted

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00769

The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of the institution decisions in TikTok’s IPRs against Cellspin Soft’s diabetes‑monitoring patent, staying the proceedings pending a new opinion.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00771

The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving Greenthread's image‑sensor patent, leaving the original rulings intact.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

· IPR2024-00758

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.

TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC

· IPR2024-00745

Tesla’s IPR against Autonomous Devices’ ’974 patent resulted in the Board finding claims 4 and 11 unpatentable and also striking the proposed substitute claims 21 and 24‑26, while leaving claims 5, 7 and other substitutes intact.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

· IPR2024-00758

Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

· IPR2024-00758

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.

NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC

· IPR2024-00764

NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-00777

Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.

Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2024-00726

Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.

· IPR2024-00756

Toyota and Infogation settled their IPR dispute over patent 6,292,743 B1, leading the Board to dismiss the case before a trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential under statutory provisions.

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

· IPR2024-00735

Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.

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

· IPR2024-00805

Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.

Google LLC v.Dialect LLC

· IPR2024-00746

Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.