US PTAB IP Litigation

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

· IPR2025-00833

CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00832

TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00831

The USPTO Director denied TSMC's request for review of the office's refusal to institute five IPRs against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00837

The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00831

TSMC’s request for a Director‑review of an inter‑ partes review was denied, leaving Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s semiconductor process patent intact. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial based on lack of persuasive justification and potential duplication with district‑court litigation.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-00889

Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00830

Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm them if disclosed.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00829

TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial, arguing that national‑security, settled expectations, and examiner errors justify instituting an IPR against patent 7,923,764.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00829

The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision denying institution of multiple IPRs covering semiconductor process patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties claim disclosure would harm their business interests.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00893

Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00828

Exhibit 1106 lists PTAB outcomes for TSMC-related IPRs, including the 2025 IPR2025-00828 concerning patent 7,579,227.

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

· IPR2025-00887

OnePlus has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving a Pantech patent. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but no new evidence is allowed. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00843

The PTAB denied a Director Review request, leaving the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz's bone‑conduction headphone patent instituted.

patent instituted

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00787

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC

· IPR2025-00874

The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00822

Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their IPR dispute, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial.

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

· IPR2025-00843

Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00822

Shenzhen Fbtech and Shenzhen Litime reached a settlement with LithiumHub Technologies, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00822 under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00875

An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.