US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00532

Petitioner Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys’s Director Review request, arguing the referral decision was proper and the Fintiv factors favor institution. The Board is urged to reject the request, keeping the 3‑D‑printing patents intact.

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

· IPR2025-00602

Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over a PCB insulation patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on good‑cause grounds before institution.

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

· IPR2025-00531

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00611

Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC

· IPR2025-00529

Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and that Samsung lacks a right to an IPR. The patent owner also asserts the Acting Director’s discretionary denial was lawful.

RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00621

Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.

Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.

· IPR2025-00466

The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

· IPR2025-00636

An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC

· IPR2025-00529

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC

· IPR2025-00526

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00526 and related cases, leaving the original denial of institution in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC

· IPR2025-00527

Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and discretionary denial authority. The response rejects Samsung’s due‑process and procedural challenges.

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00586

Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00687

An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00524

Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00524

Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC

· IPR2025-00526

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal regulations, limiting public access to the document.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00521

Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00521

Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have settled their IPR dispute over a respiratory‑rate patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution.