US PTAB IP Litigation

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00557

The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.

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

· IPR2025-00540

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and erred on factual grounds. It seeks review of the denial and institution of the IPR.

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

Samsung’s petition for Director review of a denied IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ ’336 patent was rejected, leaving the patent intact.

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

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.

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

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies’ patents, leaving the institution denials in place.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00475

Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.

International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00599

IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00562

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’188 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC

· IPR2025-00361

AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.

AT&T SERVICES INC. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC

· IPR2025-00360

AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of RightQuestion’s device‑fingerprinting patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Miller reference.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00557

RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s ‘444 patent, seeking cancellation of 23 claims on obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs and disputes any discretionary denial.

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

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.

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

· IPR2025-00540

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Mobile Data Technologies' 8,793,336 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Jul 2, 2025

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00475

Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00562

Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00557

The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· PGR2025-00016

Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00381

Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· PGR2025-00016

Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.