US PTAB IP Litigation

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent denied · Nov 4, 2025

TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

patent denied · Nov 4, 2025

Court decision.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00779

Amneal has filed a petition to cancel Nivagen's 11,813,291 patent covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2025-00761

TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

NKT Photonics Inc. et al. v.Omni Continuum LLC

· IPR2025-00839

NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2025-00786

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.

patent denied · Nov 4, 2025

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00731

Amneal Pharmaceuticals has filed a petition to invalidate all 20 claims of Nivagen’s U.S. Patent 11,925,661 covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, citing multiple prior‑art references and lack of written‑description support.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2025-00786

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to invalidate Intellectual Ventures I LLC's patent covering virtual community networks and IP routing. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner could not persuasively demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Caronni-I and RFC-1383.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00641

Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution for iCashe's NFC payment patent, arguing that USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due process, and that the Board ignored Samsung's Sotera stipulation.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00640

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 9,483,722.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00640

Samsung seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s patent. iCashe argues the Director acted properly under established memos and statutes, and that Samsung’s due‑process claims fail. The patent owner requests denial of the review.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00640

Samsung filed a Director Review petition after the USPTO denied institution of seven IPRs challenging iCashe’s patent. The petition also references concurrent P‑TACTS filings.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00639

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against iCashe, leaving the institution denials in place.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.

Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00689

Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.