US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-01009

Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00973

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-01003

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-01003

The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.

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

· IPR2025-00925

The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.

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

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.

Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00912

Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00989

The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-01003

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00999

Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.

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

· IPR2025-01071

The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.

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

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 12,021,679 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

The PTAB denied Geotab's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution decisions in place.

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

· IPR2025-00995

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s patent was rejected. The Board affirmed discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and settled expectations.

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

· IPR2025-00992

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01052

GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.

patent instituted

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2025-00885

The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,979,128. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00908

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s uplink cancellation signaling patent.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00908

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apple’s wireless device feedback patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00978

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,139,944 covering downlink control information. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.