US PTAB IP Litigation

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

Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.

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

Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.

patent denied · May 30, 2025

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Court decision.

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

· IPR2025-01080

The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.

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

· IPR2025-01080

Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.

patent denied · May 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00960

Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,917,272 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.

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

· IPR2025-01071

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving patent 11,698,687, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

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

· IPR2025-00960

Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties seek to avoid further litigation costs.

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

· IPR2025-01071

Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.

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

· IPR2025-01064

Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.

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

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).

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

· IPR2025-01050

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.

patent instituted · May 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), separating it from the IPR file for patent 11,334,918.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent denied · May 30, 2025

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

Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.

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

Micron has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of IPR 2025‑01009, arguing that the Board ignored national‑security stakes and relied improperly on patent age. The request cites examiner errors and Fintiv factors supporting institution.

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

Micron requests PTAB Director review of a denied institution for IPR against Palisade’s 9,281,314 memory‑chip patent, citing national‑security stakes, examiner error, and Fintiv factors. The petition argues the Board’s settled‑expectations analysis is misplaced.

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

Micron requests a Director Review to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for an IPR against its DRAM patents, citing national‑security importance, examiner error, and improper reliance on settled expectations.

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

Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.

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

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.

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

· IPR2025-01071

The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.

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

· IPR2025-00960

Court decision.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.

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