US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,071,207 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over a PCB insulation patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on good‑cause grounds before institution.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal regulations, limiting public access to the document.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 9,107,324, citing a settlement agreement and good cause under PTAB precedent. The motion seeks to end the pre‑institution proceeding to conserve resources.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple and patent holder ImberaTek have settled their dispute over patent 7,989,944 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on good‑cause authority to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00581

Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00581

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement for the 8,368,201 patent dispute confidential and only disclose it under strict conditions.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate nine IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes covering nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate all related IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,609,527 as confidential business information, limiting public access.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,609,527 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 9,922,348. The denial leaves the earlier institution outcomes unchanged.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.

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.

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.