US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Jan 20, 2025

Samsung and KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,459,151, citing public‑policy reasons for early termination.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 20, 2025

Samsung and KPN settled all patent disputes by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement that grants Samsung worldwide rights to KPN’s patents and ends the IPR proceeding.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.

patent · Jan 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 18, 2025

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,549,151 patent covering SIP/RTSP gateway functionality. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds citing Alston, Gateva, Mela, and Fajardo. Institutional decision is pending.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00512

Samsung Electronics and KPN settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate six inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00512 covering U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 18, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00512

Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

patent · Jan 18, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00512

Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00017

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.

Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.

· IPR2025-00466

The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00503

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their IPR dispute over a location‑based services patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00503

Samsung and KPN settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled multiple U.S., German and Chinese patent lawsuits via a comprehensive license and non‑assertion agreement covering several KPN patents.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00477

Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.

· IPR2025-00472

Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled their disputes, prompting the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted.

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00451

AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.

Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.

· IPR2025-00472

Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.