Regions Bank v. United Services Automobile Association

IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01356
Judge(s)
Michael R. Zecher, James A. Tartal, Arthur M. Peslak, Jason M. Repko
Decision Date
8 May 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2025-01356 concerning US Patent No. 12,211,095 B1, Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association (USAA) jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement. The Board, noting that the parties resolved their dispute and that public policy favors settlement, granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as business‑confidential information. No merits were decided, and the proceedings were terminated without a final written decision.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Regions Bank vs United Services Automobile Association is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00399

Apple, Inc.vsTHL Holding Company, LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.

patentIPR2025-00887

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation

Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.

patentIPR2026-00174

Microsoft CorporationvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN, keeping the institutions intact.

patentIPR2026-00203

Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.

patentIPR2025-01400

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al.vsSkysong Innovations, LLC

CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

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