US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a wireless‑device patent, arguing anticipation by Mgrdechian and obviousness in view of Kulakowski. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and urges the Board not to deny institution.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01188

Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against the ’842 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.

patent denied

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· IPR2025-01208

The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review, upholding the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung after the Patent Owner failed to show good cause for extending the deadline.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power have settled their IPR dispute over a generator fuel regulator patent. They jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01193

Microsoft and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,917,367, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’896 patent covering server‑mediated exchanges between wireless devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Perttila, Emmons and Insolia, and seeks institution of the review.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access and notify the parties of any third‑party requests.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01188

Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over multiple patents, leading them to jointly move to terminate the pending IPR for patent 11,272,535.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01187

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01271

The PTAB granted settlement motions for Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments, terminating their involvement in multiple IPRs against Champion Power’s generator patents, while Generac Power Systems remains as a petitioner.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01188

Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with two claims surviving.

patent denied

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· IPR2025-01206

The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.

patent denied

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· IPR2025-01203

The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of Samsung's Wi‑Fi patents, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient justification for differing claim constructions.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01268

Regeneron defends the PTAB’s discretionary denial of Fresenius’s request to review the denial of institution for an IPR targeting its aflibercept biosimilar patent. The response argues that Fresenius ignored the controlling Fintiv factors, misapplied settled‑expectations, and raised meritless constitutional claims.

MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01185

The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging a server‑mediated e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious when combined with Insolia. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01268

Fresenius Kabi seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Regeneron’s biosimilar patent. The petition argues the Board’s “settled expectations” rule and discretionary denial are unlawful and harm drug‑price competition.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies. The petition relies on the Eagle prior‑art system to argue anticipation and obviousness, and urges the Board to institute the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01187

Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.