US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Feb 6, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01096

Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 6, 2025

Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 6, 2025

The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC

· IPR2025-01088

Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01070

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent denied · Feb 5, 2025

GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.

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

· IPR2025-00957

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 5, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00921

Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

patent terminated or settled · Feb 5, 2025

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.

patent · Feb 5, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.

patent · Feb 5, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.

patent · Feb 5, 2025

Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00944

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 5, 2025

Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.

NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2025-00954

Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00524

Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00524

Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.

· IPR2025-00789

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.