US PTAB IP Litigation

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00607

Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,609,527 as confidential business information, limiting public access.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,609,527 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

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

· IPR2025-00503

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their IPR dispute over a location‑based services patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00503

Samsung and KPN settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2025-00532

The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

· IPR2025-00545

The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.

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

· IPR2025-00544

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, citing strong settled expectations for Mobile Data Technologies’ 2018 wireless patent and the unreviewable nature of the Director’s discretion.

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

· IPR2025-00543

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-00543 was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies has strong settled expectations, justifying discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

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

· IPR2025-00502

Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled multiple U.S., German and Chinese patent lawsuits via a comprehensive license and non‑assertion agreement covering several KPN patents.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00501

The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00501

Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.

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

· IPR2025-00542

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 9,922,348. The denial leaves the earlier institution outcomes unchanged.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00580

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

· IPR2025-00636

ControlTec and Anthony Doors resolved their co‑development dispute through a settlement agreement that releases all claims and dismisses the related district‑court case. The settlement effectively ends the IPR2025‑00636 proceeding.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00499

Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00499

The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the denial to institute several IPRs against Micron's memory patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00498

The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025-00498 (patent 8,803,214). The denial also applies to three related IPRs covering the same patent.

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

· IPR2025-00539

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

· IPR2025-00539

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.