US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00539

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.

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

· IPR2025-00537

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00628

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick have settled their dispute over patent 11,910,926 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and prior Board decisions supporting termination at the preliminary stage.

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

· IPR2025-00613

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00477

Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00496

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.

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

· IPR2025-00535

Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00495

Four Batons Wireless successfully opposed Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a Wi‑Fi authentication patent, resulting in the Board denying the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00495

Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2025-00536

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00535/00536, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact.

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

· IPR2025-00533

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00608

The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.

OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.

· IPR2025-00622

OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00494

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.

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

· IPR2025-00613

An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00576

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,732,909 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00494

Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00493

Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.

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

· IPR2025-00531

Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation and procedural errors warrant discretionary denial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00493

Four Batons Wireless responded to Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution, arguing the Board acted within its discretion under §314 and the Fintiv factors. The Board denied the review.