Judge Profile

Jeffrey S. Smith

56 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

56 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1-20 based on prior art.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00901

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.

patent terminated or settled

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.

patent terminated or settled

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00180

Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00894

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter‑partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00896

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00895

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00897

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a confidential settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00898

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00901

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00903

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00904

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.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00702

Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPR against Mullen Industries' patent 10967270, challenging five claims based on obviousness over Nakamura and Benini.

patent denied

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00856

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00857

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.

patent denied

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01432

The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.

patent instituted

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.

· IPR2024-01433

The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00742

Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC regarding augmented reality and location-based gaming claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani, setting the stage for trial.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00743

Meta Platforms successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding its challenge to Mullen Industries' patent covering head-mounted displays and interactive systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness (103) based on combinations of prior art.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00744

Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00745

Meta Platforms successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims are obvious over prior art referencing location-based games. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness for multiple claims across two patents.

patent instituted

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00746

Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.

patent terminated or settled

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00072

Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →