US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Jul 21, 2025

Microsoft and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,917,367, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01229

Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

A statistical study of 2021 IPR final written decisions shows that patents deemed unpatentable typically have extensive prior‑art citations and often rely on new prior art and expert testimony introduced during the proceeding.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00067

Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00068

Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.

patent instituted · Jul 21, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01229

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.

patent instituted · Jul 21, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00068

The PTAB granted institution for the PGR challenge against XiFi Networks' patent 12169756 involving Samsung Electronics, allowing the review to proceed despite a stay.

patent instituted · Jul 21, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00067

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.

patent · Jul 19, 2025

Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC

· IPR2025-01328

Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.

patent instituted · Jul 19, 2025

Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC

· IPR2025-01328

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 18, 2025

LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2025-01317

LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.

patent denied · Jul 18, 2025

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01324

Union Electric Company seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that blocked its IPR against MES’s ‘370 mercury‑removal patent. The petitioner contends the patent is invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds and cites multiple prior‑art references.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01324

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in five IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,933,370.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01323

Birchtech Corp. submits an authorized response opposing Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied institution. The company argues the Director’s decision is final, the patent’s litigation history does not warrant reversal, and procedural requests are untimely or unsupported.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.