SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. iCashe, Inc.

Google LLCvsCellular South Inc

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.

UiPath, Inc.vsRule 14 LLC

UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC

Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a media‑server patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is exclusive and the petition’s statutory arguments are misplaced.