US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00896

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

· IPR2025-00896

Apple and Apex Beam settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,912,081 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all court deadlines for 45 days to finalize the agreement and file dismissal papers.

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

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne’s request to rehear the PTAB Director’s decision de‑instituting its IPR is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the request merely repeats already‑rejected arguments and violates rehearing standards. The response cites the Revvo and Tesla precedents to support the denial of the rehearing.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00895

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00894

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter‑partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00893

Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

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

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung’s request to delay IPR institution by invoking recent Director Review rulings was denied. Wilus sought a short deadline extension to submit new evidence, while Samsung wanted a longer pause pending district‑court claim constructions. The PTAB emphasized statutory timing limits.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00888

The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00888 and related cases, upholding the original decision.

Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC

· IPR2025-00958

The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.

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

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC

· IPR2025-00953

Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and cites public‑policy reasons for settlement.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC

· IPR2025-00953

Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00887

Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00887

OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.

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

· IPR2025-01023

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00885

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00951

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00936

The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.

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

· IPR2025-00936

Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.

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

· IPR2025-00879

TSMC and Apple seek a director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, settled‑expectations, and material examiner errors. They argue the government shutdown alters the Fintiv calculus, making referral appropriate.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00898

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00877

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.