US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00528

Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.

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

· IPR2025-00528

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00490

Google seeks a rehearing of the PTAB Director’s decision denying institution of an IPR against VirtaMove’s 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.

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

· IPR2025-00529

Samsung Electronics has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for patent 11,503,144. The petition argues the denial relied on mistaken facts, misapplied Fintiv factors, and violated procedural due‑process rules.

Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00631

Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.

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

· IPR2025-00528

Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00489

Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.

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

· IPR2025-00537

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00537 and related proceedings, keeping the institution decisions intact.

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

· IPR2025-00527

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies, violating the APA and due‑process rights.

Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut

· IPR2025-00523

Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.

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

· IPR2025-00526

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution was rejected. The Board upheld the discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to an IPR.

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

· IPR2025-00500

Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00519

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.

Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut

· IPR2025-00523

Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.

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

· IPR2025-00602

The USPTO Director denied Amgen’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602, leaving the institution denials in place.

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

· IPR2025-00499

Micron successfully opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on its 3D NAND patent. The Board finds Yangtze’s arguments unsubstantiated and denies the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00484

Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and withdrawing pending review requests.

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC

· IPR2025-00485

NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00484

Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00483

Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00483

Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review, defending the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution and arguing the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper and lawful.

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

· IPR2025-00545

Amazon and AlmondNet have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,494,904, which covers online advertising technologies. The Board is asked to end the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00520

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284. They jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.