US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00777

Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00717

Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024

Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 7,502,958. The Board granted the termination and sealed the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00784

Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.

patent denied · Apr 19, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

patent denied · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC

· IPR2024-00821

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00784

Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00782

Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.

United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.

· IPR2024-00779

United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

patent denied · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.

· IPR2024-00824

Vectair Systems Inc.'s IPR challenge against Fresh Products, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102) or obviousness (103).

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC

· IPR2024-00809

The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Verizon Wireless's patent (9198042), finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references could be combined to teach secure execution environments for mobile data services.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.

United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.

· IPR2024-00779

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.