Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

Vertiv CorporationvsValtrus Innovations Ltd.

Vertiv seeks IPR cancellation of Valtrus’s ’277 data‑center cooling patent, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated by Nakanishi and Bishop and obvious over their combination.

Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.

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

The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist’s 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.