US PTAB IP Litigation

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Ilooda and Serendia have settled their dispute over a dermatology‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate Ilooda’s participation in the pending IPR, requesting the settlement remain confidential.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical and Serendia have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality rules. The filing cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR provisions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00374

Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies have reached a confidential settlement over U.S. Patent 8,090,025 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00372

Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,218,995. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00372

Samsung and video‑codec startup Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over a moving‑picture encoding patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00386

Serendia and EndyMed jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, seeking to separate it from the patent record.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00386

Serendia and Jeisys Medical jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b), seeking to separate it from the patent record.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical settled with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents during its IPR against Serendia, leading to a motion to suspend the schedule.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR only for Jeisys Medical Inc. after a settlement with Serendia, while EndyMed remains as a petitioner. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential.

patent instituted · Aug 1, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00374

Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.

Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew

· IPR2024-00401

Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.

AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00402

A coalition of major telecom companies (AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent 10841958. The challenge asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Lee and Brismar.

patent instituted · Aug 1, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00386

Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00374

Samsung Electronics challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 regarding video coding and error concealment techniques via an IPR Petition. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Mualla, Shirani, and Saito.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00372

Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.

Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.

· IPR2024-00363

Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.