US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 82 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
· IPR2025-00372
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00377
The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
patent terminated or settled
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00407
Amazon and NL Giken settled their inter partes review dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00424
PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC Energy Group. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00358
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
patent terminated or settled
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
· IPR2025-00402
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
patent
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00376
iRhythm has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of five IPR petitions, arguing the new ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively and violates precedent. The petitioner contends the rule would burden the PTAB and harm patent quality.
patent terminated or settled
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00404
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00459
Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.
patent denied
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
· IPR2025-00372
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
patent
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
· IPR2025-00398
MOTORTECH filed an unopposed motion asking the PTAB to treat its settlement with Altronic as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the IPR record. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and seeks limited access to the settlement documents.
patent terminated or settled
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00394
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
patent terminated or settled
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00422
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates settled an IPR against BirchTech, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for two petitioners while keeping the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
patent terminated or settled
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00393
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00393.
patent terminated or settled
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
· IPR2025-00398
MotorTech and Altronic have settled their dispute, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the pending IPR on patent 7,401,603. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00444
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00395
Nokia and ASSIA have settled their dispute over a DSL‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority to end the proceeding before any merits are decided and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent all challenged claims upheld
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00357
Samsung’s IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 8,968,924, covering lithium‑ion battery compositions with discrete carbon nanotubes, was rejected. The Board found no obviousness for any of the five challenged claims, leaving the patent intact.
patent
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00374
iRhythm challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its five IPR petitions, arguing the new “settled expectations” rule is retroactive and conflicts with Board precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
patent
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
· IPR2025-00373
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, arguing that retroactive policy changes violated due process. The petition focuses on the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses in a parallel ITC case and the newly‑created “settled expectations” doctrine.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00369
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations and Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance on Sotera stipulations.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00369
Samsung Display’s IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ 8,314,547 B2 patent was denied. The Board found insufficient merit and exercised discretion under § 314(a), leaving the patent intact.
