US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00973

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00978

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00974

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of a director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00974 and related cases, leaving Telcom Ventures’ patents untouched.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00972

The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the earlier decisions, leaving the challenged patents intact.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00977

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.

United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01053

United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00978

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition relies on two prior‑art references, Jain and Dua, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim constructions or board decisions are present yet.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00973

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent (U.S. 9,462,411) on obviousness grounds, relying on the Jain and Dua publications. The petition argues that all claim elements were known in the art before the patent’s filing date.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00972

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition asserts obviousness over the Jain and Dua publications and cites lack of commercial success. A stipulation limits further district‑court litigation if the review is instituted.

Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC

· IPR2025-01036

Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.

Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.

· IPR2025-01037

Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-01010

Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00977

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures’ ’756 patent covering smartphone‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on the Jain and Dua prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 18 claims.

patent instituted · May 23, 2025

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00974

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-01010

Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.

patent denied · May 22, 2025

Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.

Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.

Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.

Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.

Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC

· IPR2025-01006

ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.

patent denied · May 22, 2025

Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC

· IPR2025-01005

ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.

patent denied · May 22, 2025

The PTAB denied Empower Clinic Services' request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025‑01024, which challenges Eli Lilly's patent 9,474,780. The institution remains denied, ending the challenge.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00975

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of its discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00975 and related cases. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the challenges.

Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-01040

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Corning's 9,512,025 patent covering a glass‑ribbon heating cartridge for LCD displays, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references.

Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.

Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.