US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01146

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01149

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01145

Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.

patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01165

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.

patent instituted · Jun 24, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01165

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

patent instituted · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01014

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.

patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Court decision.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.