Apple Inc. v. ImberaTek, LLC

IPR2025-00575

Apple filed an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7609527 patent covering electronic modules, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00575
Filing Date
2 June 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00017

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.

patentIPR2026-00118

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.

patentIPR2025-01356

Regions BankvsUnited Services Automobile Association

Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

patentIPR2025-01081

iRhythm Technologies, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.

patentIPR2025-00610

NVIDIA CorporationvsLowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call