US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.

patent · May 3, 2025

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

patent denied · May 3, 2025

Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.

patent · May 3, 2025

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00661

Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent · May 3, 2025

Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00577

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00543

The Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the Board’s decision not to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,619,578, leaving the institution denial in place.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00544

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00544

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00543

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

Petitioner Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys’s Director Review request, arguing the referral decision was proper and the Fintiv factors favor institution. The Board is urged to reject the request, keeping the 3‑D‑printing patents intact.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00531

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00580

Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00580

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate nine inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00577

Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews covering multiple patents before any institution decision was made.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00576

Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00544

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, citing strong settled expectations for Mobile Data Technologies’ 2018 wireless patent and the unreviewable nature of the Director’s discretion.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00543

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-00543 was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies has strong settled expectations, justifying discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00580

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.