US PTAB IP Litigation

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01254

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01239

Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Court decision.

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01382

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01235

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,674,432, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art NFC and biometric references. The petition lists eight grounds covering the full claim set.

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01232

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Telcom Ventures’ ’411 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art NFC payment systems combined with biometric authentication. Two grounds are presented, differing on the interpretation of “physiological data.”

patent instituted · May 8, 2025

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01381

Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC