US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 49 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00920
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00977
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00876
Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.
patent
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00920
Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00916
Intel and AMD have settled with Advanced Cluster Systems and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, keeping it separate from the public patent file.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00915
Intel and AMD filed a joint motion to keep their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00998
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01000
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of three IPRs against Advanced Coding Technologies, leaving the original denials intact.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00875, keeping the challenge against Cellular South’s patent alive.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00911
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
patent terminated or settled
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00913
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,570,034, leaving Intel as the remaining petitioner.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00911
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00910
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.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00909
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.
patent
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
· IPR2025-00874
Aquestive Therapeutics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Iono Pharma’s epinephrine prodrug patent. Iono Pharma argues the request fails statutory standards and should be denied.
patent
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.
patent
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
· IPR2025-00874
Aquestive Therapeutics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR on its epinephrine prodrug patent, arguing factual errors and improper reliance on settled‑expectation criteria.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00907
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01003
Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00872
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
