US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00481

Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00577

Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,732,909. The parties cite a settlement agreement and PTAB good‑cause precedent to end the pre‑institution proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00531

The PTAB Director denied the petition for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00531 and related cases, keeping the institution of Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent in place.

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

· IPR2025-00518

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

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

· IPR2025-00504

Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.

· IPR2025-00512

Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

· IPR2025-00480

H2 Intellect LLC urges the PTAB Director to deny Home Depot’s request for review of the Board’s institution decision, arguing that the Board correctly found the prior art did not disclose key claim limitations and that Home Depot raised new arguments not in its original petition.

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

· IPR2025-00532

An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint PTAB petition to seal their settlement agreement, seeking to keep it confidential and limit access under federal regulations.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00478

Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.

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.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00479

AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.

Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.

· IPR2025-00472

Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.

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

· IPR2025-00500

The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00487

The USPTO Director denied Google’s petitions for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent, leaving the original denial of institution in place.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

· IPR2025-00559

ControlTec and Anthony Doors entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims and dismissing the related district court case, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00498

Micron opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner offers no statutory grounds, misstates parallel litigation, and has waived procedural challenges.

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.

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

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company

· IPR2025-00460

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.

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

· IPR2025-00496

Samsung’s petition for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,798,006 was met with a detailed response from Four Batons Wireless, arguing the denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and APA. The Board has not yet ruled on the Director Review request.

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

· IPR2025-00496

Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.