US PTAB IP Litigation

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.

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

· IPR2025-00783

Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00795

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under federal rules.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00751

USAA and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00751 concerning patent 9,876,771 after resolving related district‑court litigation.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00732

The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00732

Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00645

Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00645

The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00777

Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00757

Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00645

Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR concerning patent 8,275,827 before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under Board rules.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung's request for Director Review of institution denials in several IPRs was denied by the PTAB, leaving the original decisions unchanged.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.