US PTAB IP Litigation

RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00620

RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.

RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00621

RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00536

Samsung Electronics challenges a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards, relied on faulty facts, and violated due process.

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

· IPR2025-00624

KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00614

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00537

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00614

The PTAB denied Kingston Technology's request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the petitioner’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness unpersuasive.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00616

The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.

· IPR2025-00613

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,071,207 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00535

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00610

NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00536

Samsung’s request for Director Review of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 ‘039 patent was denied. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, citing strong settled expectations and procedural compliance.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00611

Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00534

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00607

Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00534

Samsung and Dutch telecom patent holder KPN settled multi‑jurisdictional litigation by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement covering several audio/video coding patents. The agreement provides Samsung with a perpetual license and KPN with a covenant not to sue, and mandates dismissal of all pending lawsuits.

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

· IPR2025-00602

Bristol‑Myers Squibb successfully defended its PD‑1 antibody patent after the PTAB denied Amgen’s request for Director Review, finding no credible grounds to revisit the discretionary denial.

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

· IPR2025-00683

An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00543

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 argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00534

Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,462,544. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00586

Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00533

Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).