US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00925

Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.

patent denied

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

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00921

Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

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

· IPR2025-01023

CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.

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

· IPR2025-00988

Samsung has responded to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that its compliance with a Fintiv stipulation makes the request moot. The Board had already instituted the IPR on the patent, and Samsung seeks denial of the review so the proceeding can continue.

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

· IPR2025-01021

Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

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

· IPR2025-01021

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.

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

· IPR2025-01023

Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.

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

· IPR2025-01021

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-01010

Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patent denied

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01009

Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-01010

Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.

patent denied

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-01010

The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-00889

In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.

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

· IPR2025-01068

Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00988

Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01009

Micron has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of IPR 2025‑01009, arguing that the Board ignored national‑security stakes and relied improperly on patent age. The request cites examiner errors and Fintiv factors supporting institution.

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01009

Micron requests PTAB Director review of a denied institution for IPR against Palisade’s 9,281,314 memory‑chip patent, citing national‑security stakes, examiner error, and Fintiv factors. The petition argues the Board’s settled‑expectations analysis is misplaced.