US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 75 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00559
The USPTO Director denied Anthony Inc.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00559, leaving ControlTec's patent 7,207,181 instituted.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00494
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00459
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.
patent denied
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 an IPR against Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial, citing the Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00460
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent, alleging procedural abuse and statutory non‑compliance.
patent denied
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00490
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove's patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00460
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00458
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00535
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
patent terminated or settled
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
· IPR2025-00492
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
· IPR2025-00527
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Keyless Licensing’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,976,922. The Board affirmed the earlier denial of institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2025-00457
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00489
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director's discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove's 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and violated the APA.
patent denied
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00489
Google’s request to rehear the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for VirtaMove’s migration patent was rejected. The Director relied on statutory authority and workload considerations to deny institution.
patent denied
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
The PTAB Director denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent 7,519,814. No further substantive review of the patent’s validity was undertaken.
patent denied
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
Google’s request for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Patent Owner argues the Director acted within statutory authority under §§ 314 and 316, and that judicial estoppel does not apply to agency decisions.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00458
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
patent denied
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00487
Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00452
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00453
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00487
Google has filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent, and the patent owner may submit a brief, evidence‑free response.
patent terminated or settled
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00452
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00450
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung’s Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
