US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 67 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00558
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00577
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00543
The Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the Board’s decision not to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,619,578, leaving the institution denial in place.
patent
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00559
ControlTec seeks director review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against its 18‑year‑old cochlear‑implant patent. Anthony Inc. counters, asserting the Director acted within discretion and that a material error involving the Carter reference exists.
patent terminated or settled
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-00545
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00544
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00544
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00542
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00542
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00541
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00541
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.
patent terminated or settled
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00541
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
patent denied
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00538
Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR covering a Mobile Data Technologies patent on mobile‑data technology. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and ignored clear examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00540
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00540
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00628
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00538
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies enjoys strong settled expectations for its ’801 patent, keeping the denial in place.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00538
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
patent terminated or settled
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00625
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
patent terminated or settled
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00620
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
