US PTAB IP Litigation

patent denied · Nov 3, 2025

iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in the iCashe payment‑system IPR. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the case.

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

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung seeks Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. iCashe contends the USPTO correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no protected due‑process interest. The patent owner urges denial of the review request.

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

· IPR2025-00640

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.

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

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without proper rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, constituting an abuse of discretion.

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

Court decision.

Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00689

Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and urges the Board to institute review.

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

· IPR2025-00645

Samsung has filed a petition to invalidate iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references to argue obviousness and asserts that PTAB discretion should not be exercised.

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

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.

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

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC patent (U.S. 11,694,053), asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bangs, Kerdraon, Koh, and Fisher. The petition seeks institution on claims 1‑8 and 17‑20 under §§102 and 103.

Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC

· IPR2025-00700

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.

patent instituted · Nov 3, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00640

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC‑related patent 9,483,722, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over prior art such as Finkenzeller, Kerdraon, Koh, and Bangs. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.

Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC

· IPR2025-00700

Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates contest the patent owner’s request for a director review of the IPR, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and unencumbered by third‑party interests.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to limit public access to the agreement, citing Board rules and regulations.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

BirchTech Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 10,668,430 patent, arguing the case should be handled in an existing MDL and that the Board misapplied the privity analysis under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430 and jointly request the PTAB keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Nov 2, 2025

Petitioners and Birchtech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Nov 2, 2025

The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.