US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.

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

· PGR2025-00070

Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.

Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01361

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.

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

· IPR2025-01187

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

patent instituted · Jul 29, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

· PGR2025-00070

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.

patent instituted · Jul 29, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01190

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.

patent instituted · Jul 29, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01187

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01187, allowing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. to proceed against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11057896.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 28, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01350

Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01350

Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01350

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’801 patent covering SSD metadata and maintenance functions. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims.

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC

· IPR2025-01331

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 25, 2025

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC

· IPR2025-01330

BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.

Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

· IPR2025-01355

Guardant Health’s IPR against the ’013 single‑cell sequencing patent resulted in the Board finding all 28 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior publications by Linnarsson and McCloskey. The petition’s obviousness arguments were accepted and the patent owner’s defenses were rejected.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 25, 2025

Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

· IPR2025-01353

Guardant Health’s IPR resulted in all 28 claims of the 10,697,013 B1 patent being held unpatentable for obviousness over prior‑art tagging methods. The Board affirmed the petitioner’s combination of Linnarsson and McCloskey references.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jul 25, 2025

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Jul 25, 2025

The PTAB found Samsung’s challenge successful for 11 of the 15 claims of Maxell’s ’815 patent, deeming them obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while four claims remained upheld.

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 25, 2025

Samsung’s inter partes review of Maxell’s 11,017,815 B2 video‑profile patent ended with the PTAB finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable, preserving Samsung’s product roadmap.

Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-01329

Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.

patent denied · Jul 25, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01333

The USPTO Director denied Meta Platforms' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01333, leaving the original decision that the IPR was not instituted unchanged.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 25, 2025

Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-01329

Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.

patent · Jul 25, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01333

Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.

patent · Jul 25, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01333

Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.

patent instituted · Jul 25, 2025

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

patent denied · Jul 25, 2025

Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.