US PTAB IP Litigation

CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

patent denied · Apr 25, 2025

Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00927

Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.

patent instituted · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.

patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 24, 2025

The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Court decision.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.