IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 140 · 4,175 total
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions involving Netlist’s patents after the Director recused herself, leaving the Board’s decisions final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Netlist IPRs, making the Board's decision final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of a PTAB decision in its IPR against Netlist, leaving the Board’s ruling intact.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2017‑00549, finding that Samsung Electronics successfully invalidated ten claims of Netlist’s ’364 memory‑module patent as obvious over the Halbert and Amidi references. All challenged claims were held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 8,471,950 camera‑control patent, asserting that three earlier imaging patents render all 15 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed a petition for rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition relies on an expanded stipulation to waive district‑court invalidity grounds and cites recent informative decisions to argue that the patent’s post‑expiration assertion makes denial inappropriate.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s decision to refer the matter to the district court, leaving HBCU Messaging’s patent intact.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against HBCU Messaging’s MMS patent. The petitioner argues that its claim‑construction positions are consistent with district‑court rulings and that the Board improperly applied the Revvo discretionary denial. Apple asks that the decision be vacated and the case be instituted on the merits.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
A settlement agreement between the U.S. government and a group of gun‑rights claimants resolves three pending federal lawsuits over forced‑reset triggers. The parties dismiss the cases, return seized devices, and release each other from future claims, while agreeing not to enforce certain firearm statutes against the claimants.
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
Citrix Systems and Cloud Software Group moved to withdraw their IPR against K.Mizra’s 8.2 million‑patent. The Patent Owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple filed Director Review requests for two IPRs against HBCU Messaging’s patent. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence. A decision on the review will follow.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software. The parties also filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the underlying district court case.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s decision not to institute the IPR covering HBCU Messaging’s patent 11,089,450, as well as two related IPRs. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks reversal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its DRAM‑module patent, arguing Samsung failed to name a required real party in interest and that the proceeding duplicates parallel ITC litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist's ’060 memory‑package patent are obvious over prior art such as Kim, Rajan, Riho, and Wyman. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed, leading to a complete invalidation of the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent succeeded, finding all 20 claims obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman. The decision invalidates the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director review of two PTAB decisions was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025‑01431, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable after Samsung demonstrated obviousness over Harris, FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the Board finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and other prior art. The term “rank” was construed to include only a single memory device.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that, absent extraordinary circumstances, IPR panels must resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision. The rule aims to streamline proceedings and prevent repeated issue‑by‑issue hearings.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art fails to teach key claim elements and the expert declaration offers no new analysis. The Board is urged to reject institution.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.