US PTAB IP Litigation

Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00411

Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.

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

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.

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

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition to cancel all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier driver‑authentication systems such as Murphy, Schanz, Petrik and Benco.

RingConn LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00412

RingConn has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 1‑18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over Schröder, Niwa, Mestas and Yuen.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00335

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.

patent instituted · Jun 1, 2025

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00243

MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· PGR2025-00021

Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.

patent instituted · Jun 1, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01071

Samsung’s petition to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review was successful. The Board upheld the institution and found no error in the earlier decision, keeping the IPR proceeding alive.

patent · May 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01080

Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-01064

Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that terminated the IPR challenge to patent 11,687,971 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,443,344 after reaching a license agreement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet instituted the review, so termination is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.

patent instituted · May 30, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.

patent instituted · May 30, 2025

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.

patent instituted · May 30, 2025

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00960

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01009

The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Palisade Technologies, leaving the institution denials in place.

patent · May 30, 2025

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01009

Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.

Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01008

The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01008, leaving the original denial in place.