US PTAB IP Litigation

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01080

Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01069

Wilus seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 802.11ax Wi‑Fi patent, arguing the Board ignored settled expectations, misapplied the diverse‑subject‑matter test, and ignored Samsung’s contradictory indefiniteness positions.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of a proximity‑based loyalty‑coupon patent, arguing that the invention is obvious in view of Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition seeks institution of the review under §103.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google succeeded in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims of the ’896 patent unpatentable as obvious over existing short‑range ID and e‑commerce technologies.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of the ’896 patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that prior‑art systems (Perttila, Emmons, Insolia, etc.) make the claims obvious under §103. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.

patent denied

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01067

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Google successfully challenged U.S. Patent 11,687,971, a proximity‑based wireless communication system, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the Eagle reference anticipates and renders obvious each claim limitation.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless transaction patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims unpatentable, while two claims remained upheld.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated Bluetooth communications, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-01064

Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01067

Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.

Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01109

Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination before the proceeding is instituted.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-01062

Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.

Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.

· IPR2025-01063

Perplexity AI and Comet ML reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,650,968, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before instituting trial and to keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.

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

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.

patent instituted

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01014

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that terminated the IPR challenge to patent 11,687,971 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.