US PTAB IP Litigation

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2025-00177

Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2025-00177

Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00261

Koki Holdings America and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson and Motorola reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00174 concerning patent 11,184,130. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317 before any merits are decided.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

· IPR2025-00172

Apple filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR 2025‑00172. The response argues that DH International waived any discretionary denial arguments by not filing the brief allowed under the Interim Processes memo and that the Board’s practice of permitting affidavit cures is proper.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.

Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00196

Green Revolution Cooling files an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Midas Green Technologies, arguing the Board correctly weighed the Fintiv factors and that petitioner’s stipulations limit prior‑art overlap.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00165

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

· IPR2025-00172

DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) opposes HighLevel’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, citing the Hulu precedent and the fact that the claims have already been invalidated in district court. The response stresses efficiency and the Board’s discretion to deny institution.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

The PTAB denied HighLevel's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering patents owned by ClickFunnels. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.

Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD

· IPR2025-00195

The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359 before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00243

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00230

RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00194

Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00234

The USPTO denied HighLevel, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00234, leaving the patent owned by ClickFunnels intact.

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00149

Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.