US PTAB IP Litigation

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Align’s 10,791,936 dental scanning patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability for the entire claim set.

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

· IPR2025-00790

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating successfully moved its IPR against Align Technology's dental scanning patent to the trial phase. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution on all 20 claims.

patent denied · Oct 4, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00785

The PTAB denied institution for American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board specifically rejected the obviousness arguments concerning partitioning and descriptions limitations based on prior art references Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski.

patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 9,208,423 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over prior art Doughty, Bursch, and Fox. The petition is pending before the PTAB.

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

· IPR2025-00642

The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.

patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.

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

· IPR2025-00644

iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 3, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00642

Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon and AlmondNet have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,494,904, which covers online advertising technologies. The Board is asked to end the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their OLED display patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00680

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-00655

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

patent instituted · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00029

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.

patent instituted · Oct 3, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.