US PTAB IP Litigation

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00054

Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR before the Board institutes trial, citing the early stage of the proceeding and prior Board practice of granting such terminations.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00052

Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00094

Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai references.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00054

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00052

Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.

patent instituted · May 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.

· IPR2026-00085

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00094

The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· PGR2025-00078

Terumo BCT seeks to invalidate Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent (U.S. 12,171,916) by arguing all 22 claims are obvious, lack written description, and are abstract calculations. The petition requests cancellation of the entire patent.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01522

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’682 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date.

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid, Ltd.

· IPR2025-01521

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of SnapAid’s ’325 patent on obviousness grounds, citing a broad set of prior‑art references covering real‑time image‑quality assessment.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01519

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01412

BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.

patent instituted · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01520

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’702 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing multiple prior‑art camera‑technology references.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Samsung (on behalf of Apple) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references. No secondary considerations are presented.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

Apple seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the review and find all claims unpatentable.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· PGR2025-00063

Apple petitions to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR to cancel all 23 claims.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· PGR2025-00063

Apple succeeded in invalidating Omni MedSci's wearable physiological measurement patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims obvious over prior art.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding claims 1, 2, 7 and 15‑23 unpatentable while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.