Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. AQ Corporation

Microsoft Corporation et al.vsX1 Discovery, Inc.

The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.

The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.

Charter Communications, Inc.vsIarnach Technologies Limited

Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.

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

The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.