US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell’s preliminary sur‑reply rebuts Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the patent’s “association information” requirement is not satisfied by Samsung’s prior‑art references. The patent owner emphasizes the need for a storage element that actually stores the association data, which Samsung’s citations lack.

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

Election Systems & Software petitions to invalidate Hart InterCivic’s 12,125,319 patent, asserting that its claims are abstract, obvious over prior‑art voting‑machine technology, and lack written description for recursive features.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.

Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01319

Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.

patent denied · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01316

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.

patent denied · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01316

The PTAB denied institution for Samsung against Maxell's patent 10812646 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of prevailing standard.

patent instituted · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01308

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01308 involving Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., allowing the dispute over patent 11277650 to proceed to trial.

patent · Jul 16, 2025

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent · Jul 16, 2025

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01279

ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.

patent instituted · Jul 16, 2025

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 12,115,233. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review, citing the settlement and lack of an institution decision.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01210

TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01305

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’572 patent covering semiconductor interconnect fabrication. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.