US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review Request, asserting that the new RPI arguments are untimely and that the Director’s discretionary denial was proper.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple reached a settlement, prompting the Commission to dismiss the case without further review.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00834

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo Technology Group settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple filed a joint motion to end the case based on a settlement. The Commission found no reason to deny the motion and declined to review the initial determination.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00834

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00836

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,816,249 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on three prior‑art patents (Burns, Yang, Guruswamy). The petition argues that the Board should institute trial and rejects any discretionary denial.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00837

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,106,824 patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art IDS patents (Burns, Yang, and Wittenberg). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

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

· IPR2025-00793

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’792 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues strong merits and seeks institution, while disputing any discretionary denial.

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.

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

· IPR2025-00785

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ load‑balancing patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

patent instituted · Oct 4, 2025

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 · 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.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung's request for Director Review of institution denials in several IPRs was denied by the PTAB, leaving the original decisions unchanged.

patent · Oct 3, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of an IPR over iCashe's mobile‑payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, including the improper rescission of the Vidal Memo and failure to consider Samsung's Sotera stipulation.

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

· IPR2025-00643

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.

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

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.