US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 50 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00865
TSMC seeks Director review of a denied institution decision, arguing that the ’747 patent was erroneously issued and threatens U.S. national‑security‑critical chip production. The petition highlights material examiner errors, lack of settled expectations by the patent owner, and the impact of the 2025 government shutdown on the Fintiv analysis.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00905
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their disputes, leading to the joint termination of sixteen IPRs covering laser‑beam‑steering patents. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00863
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
patent denied
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00864
The PTAB upheld its discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. The petitioner's request for Director review was rejected.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00904
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. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three related IPRs, leaving the original institution denials in place.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00901
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00863
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
patent denied
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00862
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00900
Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00895
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
patent terminated or settled
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00863
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00897
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00862
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and public health. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
patent terminated or settled
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00862
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
· IPR2025-00861
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
patent terminated or settled
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to stay court deadlines while they finalize the agreement.
patent terminated or settled
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
· IPR2025-00861
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-00889
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
patent denied
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00888
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution in an IPR concerning its LTE/5G patents, arguing the petitioner’s prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that there is no material examiner error.
patent
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00893
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Nivagen’s orphan‑drug patent. The petitioner argues the denial improperly treated claim‑construction issues as discretionary and was issued by the wrong official.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00854
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). They argue the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm their interests if disclosed.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-00889
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
