US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00383

The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00423

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s WEC Energy Group and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430. They filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and MidAmerican Energy have jointly moved to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

· IPR2025-00401

C.R. Bard and Medline filed a joint PTAB motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure to federal agencies only.

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

The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.

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

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR pending settlement.

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

· IPR2025-00447

The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,601,780 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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

· IPR2025-00423

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules, seeking to terminate the IPR while protecting commercial terms.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.

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

· IPR2025-00446

PTAB denied Samsung’s Director Review requests to overturn institution denials for five IPRs, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

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

· IPR2025-00450

Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00425

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

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

· IPR2025-00423

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner BirchTech jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential and terminate the IPR, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

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

Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00379

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00433

The USPTO denied Cambridge Industries' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00433, leaving the original denial in place.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

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. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.

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

· IPR2025-00438

The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.