US PTAB IP Litigation

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

patent denied · Aug 31, 2025

Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01479

BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01478

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01478

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.

patent · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01413

BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025

The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2025-01488

Apple’s request to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against HBCU Messaging’s messaging patent was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing procedural rules and claim‑construction inconsistencies.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2025

The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01494

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2025-01486

Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions involving Netlist’s patents after the Director recused herself, leaving the Board’s decisions final.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Netlist IPRs, making the Board's decision final.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of a PTAB decision in its IPR against Netlist, leaving the Board’s ruling intact.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01494

BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2017‑00549, finding that Samsung Electronics successfully invalidated ten claims of Netlist’s ’364 memory‑module patent as obvious over the Halbert and Amidi references. All challenged claims were held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2025-01493

Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.

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

· IPR2025-01315

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 8,471,950 camera‑control patent, asserting that three earlier imaging patents render all 15 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.

FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.

· IPR2025-01490

FedEx has filed a petition for rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition relies on an expanded stipulation to waive district‑court invalidity grounds and cites recent informative decisions to argue that the patent’s post‑expiration assertion makes denial inappropriate.