US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00481

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.

Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00669

Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00481

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 25, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00626

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00625

KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.

patent · Feb 25, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00625

Court decision.

patent · Feb 25, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00625

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 24, 2025

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00606

NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

Court decision.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 24, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00606

The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

ControlTec and Anthony Doors resolved their co‑development dispute through a settlement agreement that releases all claims and dismisses the related district‑court case. The settlement effectively ends the IPR2025‑00636 proceeding.

Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.

· IPR2025-00633

Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00629

Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00635

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.

patent instituted · Feb 24, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00606

NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC