Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

Klein Tools, Inc.vsMilwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.

Intel Corporation et al.vsInterDigital, Inc.

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of InterDigital’s ’556 patent covering in‑loop video filtering, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

Samsung Display challenges 19 claims of Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (11828425) based on anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner argues that key features, such as specialized doping and flexible encapsulation, were already disclosed in prior art references.

Regions BankvsUnited Services Automobile Association

Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Aptiv Services US, LLC et al.vsMicrochip Technology, Inc.

Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.