US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01059
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering 26 claims.
patent terminated or settled
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-01064
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00953
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
· IPR2025-01063
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
· IPR2025-00959
Tritech Software Systems seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Carbyne’s IPR, arguing the petition is deficient due to inconsistent claim constructions across forums.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01059
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 18 claims.
patent
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00941
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic and Optoma's IPR on its expired projector patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution wasteful and duplicative.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01052
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01052
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00951
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01051
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
patent terminated or settled
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00951
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01050
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
patent
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01049
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), separating it from the IPR file for patent 11,334,918.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00935
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00935
Samsung argues that the prior‑art Lee and Choudhury teach the same BSS‑color disabling features claimed in the ’163 patent, and urges the PTAB to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review of the institution decision.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01118
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests for two IPRs have been received and set a five‑day deadline for the patent owner to file a limited response, prohibiting new evidence.
patent
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01109
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.
