US PTAB IP Litigation

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00519

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00519, requesting the settlement be treated as business confidential information.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00519

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00520

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284. They jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial, citing the Fintiv factors and settled expectations.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent, alleging procedural abuse and statutory non‑compliance.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review, contending that the PTAB abused its discretion in denying institution of an IPR against Cerence’s ‘486 patent. The arguments focus on misapplication of Fintiv factors, unfounded settled‑expectations claims, and a breach of §314(c) notice requirements.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00520

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial on Cerence’s patent 8,825,486. The order confirms the original denial of institution.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Court decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00519

LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on Maxell’s ‘188 patent, asserting that claims 1‑9 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering thumbnail image editing and protection.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00520

LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,244,284 covering a display apparatus and video processing method, arguing that claims 18‑20 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references involving dual‑radio devices, Bluetooth, WLAN, and related standards.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’486 patent on contrastive‑stress speech synthesis, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art TTS systems.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company