US PTAB IP Litigation

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

Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.

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

Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s home‑networking patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.

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

Maxell challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR over its video‑management patent, alleging procedural abuse and improper burden shifting. The request seeks Director review to overturn the institution.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00727

ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Google and Proxense filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The parties seek Board protection of the agreement from public disclosure.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00727

ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.

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

· IPR2024-00717

Maxell has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and relied on rescinded guidance. The petition seeks to deny institution and extend the filing deadline.

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

The USPTO Director denied Samsung's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the original denial of institution in place.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.

Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.

· IPR2024-00824

Vectair Systems Inc. filed an opening petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 owned by Fresh Products, Inc. The challenge asserts that claims 1, 19, and 38 are anticipated (Section 102) or obvious (Section 103) based on various prior art references related to urinal screens and deodorizers.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC

· IPR2024-00821

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.

HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00813

HL Klemove Corporation filed an institution petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are rendered obvious by combining prior art references Bigbee and Nguyen in the field of fault-tolerant processors.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC

· IPR2024-00809

Verizon Wireless and Cellco filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets claims 1-18, arguing that the patent is anticipated by prior art references including Limont and Wright.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00784

Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00783

Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.

Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00782

Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.

United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.

· IPR2024-00779

United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.

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

· IPR2024-00777

Samsung challenged Maxell's patent claims regarding video content management and user profiles in an IPR petition, asserting obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the arguments did not meet the standard for compelling merits.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00775

Microsoft Corporation initiated a PTAB petition challenging the validity of Proxense's '730 Patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over prior art references Burger and Robinson. The petition focuses on biometric authentication systems, arguing that combining elements from these references renders the claimed technology predictable.

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

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00727

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

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

· IPR2024-00717

Samsung filed a Petition challenging Maxell's patent (US 11223757) on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the claimed camera delay mechanisms are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7.