Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLC

LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsARCELORMITTAL

POSCO challenges ArcelorMittal’s steel‑related patent in IPR2024‑01376, defending the Board’s decision to institute the case. The petitioner argues the merits are strong, overlap with parallel ITC proceedings is minimal, and the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC

The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.

Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.

Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.