US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00489

The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs against VirtaMove’s migration‑related patent. The order applies uniformly to all listed cases.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

BirchTech seeks PTAB Director Review to block institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity standard.

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

· IPR2025-00463

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that terminates the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.

C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP

· IPR2025-00400

C.R. Bard and Medline Industries jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record for U.S. Patent 11,684,347 covering urinary catheters.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking termination of IPR 2025-00425.

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

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00478

The USPTO denied AMD and Pensando's request for rehearing of a Director discretionary denial in IPR2025-00478 concerning patent 8,924,596. The order affirms the original decision without further review.

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

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00385

Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.

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

· IPR2025-00392

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00435

Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ IPR petition. The petitioner’s request for rehearing, based on new informal survey data, was rejected as unsupported and lacking any APA or due‑process violation.

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

· IPR2025-00447

Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.

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

· IPR2025-00457

Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,589,225. They jointly moved to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties from the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00423

The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.

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

· IPR2025-00392

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

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

· IPR2025-00385

Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.

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

· IPR2025-00422

The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00451

AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00383

Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.