US PTAB IP Litigation

Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited

· IPR2025-01078

Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Intercurrency Software’s U.S. Patent 11,620,701, seeking to invalidate all sixteen claims as obvious over existing foreign‑exchange trading systems.

Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited

· IPR2025-01078

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Light & Wonder against Evolution Malta, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'payout' including progressive jackpots.

Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited

· IPR2025-01073

Light & Wonder successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Evolution Malta Limited's patent (10629024), challenging claims related to internet-based wagering. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'payout,' finding that prior art reference Kido anticipates several key claims.

Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited

· IPR2025-01072

Light & Wonder, Inc. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Evolution Malta Limited regarding roulette wagering systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation grounds (102) and key claim constructions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01071

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-01064

Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.

patent instituted · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.

patent instituted · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.

patent denied · May 28, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.

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

· IPR2025-01067

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.

patent denied · May 28, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01067

Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.

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

· IPR2025-01067

The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.

Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.

· IPR2025-01060

Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.