US PTAB IP Litigation

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,601,780 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.

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

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00393.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations and Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance on Sotera stipulations.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

Samsung Display’s IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ 8,314,547 B2 patent was denied. The Board found insufficient merit and exercised discretion under § 314(a), leaving the patent intact.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00368, finding that overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the denial. Google’s request for rehearing was rejected.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Samsung Display sought an IPR of Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 B2 display patent. The PTAB denied institution, and the Director affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR challenging Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent. They argue the denial misapplied statutory frameworks and ignored a Sotera stipulation.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Samsung’s petition to invalidate a key display patent was denied by the PTAB. The Director affirmed the Board’s discretion under § 314(a), finding no compelling merits and correcting the Board’s interpretation of pre‑AIA prior‑art rules.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

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

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR covering Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the Director ignored the patent’s recent issuance, lack of commercialization, and the Sotera stipulation, and misapplied Fintiv factors.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing discretionary authority and the existence of a parallel district‑court case. The decision rests on the Fintiv factors and statutory discretion.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing of its IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, upholding the Director’s discretionary denial. The Board cited a parallel Samsung district‑court case and the petition’s weak merits as reasons for denial.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the denial ignored settled‑expectations guidance, Fintiv factors, and a Sotera stipulation, and was applied retroactively after the Vidal Memo was rescinded.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Samsung Display’s IPR petition was denied by the PTAB after a Director Review affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial, despite correcting the Board’s statutory analysis of the prior art.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.

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

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,818,449 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

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

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s ’449 patent covering video‑thumbnail navigation. The petition argues that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art references Bryant, Kaplan and Horn, and seeks institution of the review.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC