US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00428

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00490

Google filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent 7,784,058. The Patent Owner may submit a brief response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

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

· IPR2025-00480

Home Depot's patent owner H2 Intellect and Samsung settled the related district court case, prompting a joint motion to stay PTAB deadlines. The parties seek a 30‑day stay to finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2025-00455

The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.

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

· IPR2025-00457

Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the IPR against MidAmerican before any merits decision.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

PacifiCorp challenges the Director's discretionary denial of an IPR on MES’s ‘225 patent covering mercury control technologies, arguing the petitions are timely, there are no real parties in interest, and the PTAB is the proper forum.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity analysis under §315(b).

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

· IPR2025-00520

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.

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

· IPR2025-00448

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

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

· IPR2025-00449

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the original denials in place.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

Petitioners and the patent owner jointly move to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

· IPR2025-00449

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.

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

· IPR2025-00448

Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.

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

· IPR2025-00447

Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates contest the patent owner’s request for a director review of the IPR, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and unencumbered by third‑party interests.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to limit public access to the agreement, citing Board rules and regulations.

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

· IPR2025-00444

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.