US PTAB IP Litigation

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.

· IPR2024-00611

Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.

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

· IPR2024-00605

Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC

· IPR2024-00606

Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).

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

· IPR2024-00605

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.

SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00385

Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property over a CO₂‑capture oil‑recovery patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR.

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00310

Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-00600

MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC

· IPR2024-00606

Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-00600

MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-00598

MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,051,306, leading the PTAB to terminate four related inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-00599

MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-00598

MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled eight IPRs. The Board terminated the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.

patent denied

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00565

Monarch’s preliminary response argues that Juniper’s obviousness grounds fail because the cited references do not teach a “home gateway” and Li‑2 is not a printed publication, urging the PTAB to deny institution of the IPR.

patent denied

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00668

The USPTO denied Nintendo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00668, leaving the Board’s ruling in place.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00384

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

· IPR2024-00566

ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.

Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC

· IPR2024-00542

Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

· IPR2024-00566

ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.