US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00645

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

Amgen has filed Director Review requests in IPR2025-00601 and -00602, and the PTAB has instructed Bristol‑Myers Squibb to respond within five business days without new evidence.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00627

KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00632

The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.

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

· IPR2025-00645

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.

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

· IPR2025-00644

iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.

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

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.

Apple Inc. v.--

· IPR2025-00600

Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00626

KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.

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

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung filed a petition asking the USPTO Director to rehear the denial of institution for several IPRs targeting iCashe’s patent. The request challenges the Director’s discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00586

The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.

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

· IPR2025-00642

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.

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

· IPR2025-00641

iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00581

Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

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

· IPR2025-00641

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in the iCashe payment‑system IPR. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the case.

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

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung seeks Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. iCashe contends the USPTO correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no protected due‑process interest. The patent owner urges denial of the review request.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00687

Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.

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

· IPR2025-00640

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.

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

· IPR2025-00639

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without proper rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, constituting an abuse of discretion.