US PTAB IP Litigation

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

Shenzhen Fbtech and Shenzhen Litime reached a settlement with LithiumHub Technologies, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00822 under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

Shenzhen FBTech, Shenzhen Litime and LithiumHub Technologies filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business‑confidential information, invoking statutory authority for confidentiality.

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

The parties to IPR2025‑00825 settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

IKEA and Pointwise jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement in IPR2025-00798 be treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board’s decision on the confidentiality request is pending.

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00798 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding per settlement and statutory provisions.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

patent denied · Jan 4, 2025

LithiumHub Technologies and Shenzhen FBTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994, seeking Board approval to dismiss the proceeding.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00722

The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Court decision.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00788

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00722

Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s 11,799,131 patent covering lithium‑ion battery electrolytes and electrode structures, seeking cancellation of claims 14‑17 on obviousness grounds.

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

Chinese challengers have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of LithiumHub’s ‘994 starter‑battery patent, arguing obviousness over six prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.