US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00872

Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.

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

· IPR2025-00848

The USPTO denied the Director Review requests filed by TSMC and Apple challenging the denial to institute IPR2025-00848 against Marlin Semiconductor's patent.

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

· IPR2025-00865

TSMC and Apple attempted to overturn USPTO denials of institution for Marlin Semiconductor patents, but the Board denied their Director Review requests, leaving the institution decisions intact.

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

· IPR2025-00865

The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. Petitioners TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.

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

· IPR2025-00864

TSMC seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor's 2015 FinFET patent. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. It also argues the ITC shutdown changes the Fintiv calculus.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00863

The PTAB denied AMD's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00863, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.

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

· IPR2025-00848

The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.

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

· IPR2025-00864

The PTAB denied the petition for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple versus Marlin Semiconductor. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.

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

· IPR2025-00848

TSMC seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2018 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, public‑interest, and material‑error concerns. The petition argues the shutdown‑induced delay in the ITC makes referral essential.

Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00845

Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00863

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,877 B2. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the inter partes review.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00837

Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00862

AMD and ACS settled their GPU patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR after it had been instituted.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00862

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.

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

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over Patent 7,784,058. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b), citing the sensitivity of the information.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

Amphenol and Credo have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that no merits decision has been made. The Board is asked to end the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.