US PTAB IP Litigation

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 7,784,058. They jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, making termination permissible.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, making termination permissible under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Tritech Software Systems’ Director Review request to overturn the institution of an IPR. The petitioner asserts the request is procedurally barred and that the patent owner’s reliance on its own prosecution statements is proper.

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

· IPR2025-00888

OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.

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

· IPR2025-00887

The USPTO Director denied OnePlus's request for review of the denial to institute inter partes review against Pantech patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that should not be disclosed publicly.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled all disputes over Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00885

The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter‑partes review dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-00889

GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.

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

· IPR2025-00885

In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and VirtaMove have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 virtualization patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.

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

· IPR2025-00879

The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00876

Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00894

Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,462,767 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

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

· IPR2025-00893

The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion seeks to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and restrict access.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and virtualization startup VirtaMove settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2025-00850 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 patent. The Board is asked to end the inter partes review and keep the agreement confidential.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00895

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering a wireless communication patent (U.S. 10,568,113). The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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

· IPR2025-00879

The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.