US PTAB IP Litigation

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.

· PGR2024-00050

Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its authority to end settled cases.

patent denied · Aug 30, 2024

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.

· PGR2024-00050

Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review of patent 11,920,339. The Board granted the joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01363

Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01300

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01364

Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.

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

· IPR2024-01176

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.

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

· IPR2024-01176

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01386

Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.

· IPR2024-01382

CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.

Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC

· IPR2024-01361

Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01363

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC

· IPR2024-01362

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01301

Harman International Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,805,692, asserting that its wearable audio claims are obvious over prior art such as Jannard, Wittenberg, Relan, and Barnes. The petition argues that discretionary exclusions do not apply and requests the Board to institute the review.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01372

Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.

BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01346

BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.