US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access and notify the parties of any third‑party requests.

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01360

Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01358

Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,529,029, alleging obviousness over the Gross, Davis, and Furukawa references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01357

Zesty.ai filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,650,285, arguing the claims are obvious over the Gross publication (and Gross + Davis for claim 8) under §103. The petition includes an expert declaration supporting unpatentability.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01368

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01359

Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01365

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01367

Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Jul 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01367

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01367, allowing Albany International Corp. to challenge Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388.

patent instituted · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter, LLC challenges Yondr’s ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over earlier locking‑case references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter has filed a PTAB petition seeking cancellation of Yondr’s lockable‑case patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over earlier security‑case publications. The petition lists seven claims and three statutory grounds.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter and Yondr settled their post‑grant review dispute over patent 12,133,078. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.