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

patentIPR2025-00232

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.

patentIPR2025-00783

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

OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.

patentIPR2025-00889

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC

The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.

patentIPR2025-00267

Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation

The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.

patentIPR2025-01208

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.

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