US PTAB IP Litigation

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2025-00473

Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00474

Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00446

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 due‑process and APA merit.

patent terminated or settled

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00447

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

HydraFacial and Eunsung Global settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00446

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

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

· IPR2025-00438

Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and that parallel district‑court litigation makes the IPR redundant. The request urges termination of the proceeding under § 314.

Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.

· IPR2025-00465

The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-00438

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks to block Stratasys’s request for a Director Review of an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,569,466. The petitioner argues the referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that the broad stipulation eliminates any parallel district‑court litigation. The Board is urged to deny the review request.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

Eunsung Global Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial's hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing errors in Fintiv factor analysis and emphasizing efficiency. The Board had denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

The USPTO Director denied Cambridge Industries' request to review the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Applied Optoelectronics' patents, leaving the prior institution denials in place.

Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.

· IPR2025-00464

The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over prior art references Gwozdz, Meezan ’962, and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-00480

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect's patent 8,433,296.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00433

Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended its 9,523,826 patent as the PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ inter partes review petition. The Board found no abuse of discretion, rejecting the petitioner’s new data and APA arguments.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00435

Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.

Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00428

Nokia and patent owner ASSIA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,991,122 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00488

Board email outlining procedural requirements for Director Review responses in IPR2025-00488 and related cases.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

patent terminated or settled

CosMX seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde’s battery patent. The request argues that conflicting claim constructions in two parallel petitions require denial under the Director’s guidance and discretionary authority.

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

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

patent terminated or settled

Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s attempt to overturn a PTAB institution of a lithium‑battery patent, arguing the parallel‑petition issue is moot and the Board’s decision was proper and efficient.

Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.

· IPR2025-00492

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

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

· IPR2025-00459

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review, contending that the PTAB abused its discretion in denying institution of an IPR against Cerence’s ‘486 patent. The arguments focus on misapplication of Fintiv factors, unfounded settled‑expectations claims, and a breach of §314(c) notice requirements.

patent instituted

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.