US PTAB IP Litigation

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01085

Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01084

Orca Security and Wiz settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 11,929,896. The Board accepted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01084

Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01052

Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.

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

· IPR2025-01080

The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00995

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00995, leaving the original denial of institution in place.

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

· IPR2025-01080

Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00960

Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,917,272 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.

patent instituted

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01071

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving patent 11,698,687, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

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

· IPR2025-01069

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00960

Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties seek to avoid further litigation costs.

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

· IPR2025-01069

Samsung challenges Wilus’s request for Director Review of the IPR institution, arguing examiner error and consistent claim constructions. The petitioner seeks denial of the review so the IPR can proceed.

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

· IPR2025-01068

Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01071

Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.

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

· IPR2025-01068

Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before it was instituted.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01123

Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

· IPR2025-00959

The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.