The proceedings and the patents
The proceedings are IPR2026-00491 (U.S. Patent 10,469,119) and IPR2026-00492 (U.S. Patent 11,863,223). The Board's notices caption them Apple Inc. v. Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., naming Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. as patent owner. Magnova, LLC filed the patent owner's mandatory notices in both proceedings. In them, Magnova states that it owns each patent, that Spigen Korea is a former owner from which Magnova acquired all rights, and, in updated notices filed November 3, 2026, that it has asked the Board to correct the caption to name Magnova and that the petitioner does not oppose. The '119 patent, titled Magnetic Mount for Electronic Devices, issued November 5, 2019, with 20 claims. The '223 patent, with the same title, issued January 2, 2024, with 10 claims.
The petitions and the grounds
The Board's notices, mailed September 25, 2026, accorded each petition a filing date of September 18, 2026. Every ground is obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.
IPR2026-00491 challenges claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10 through 16, 18, and 19 of the '119 patent. Ground 1 applies Wojcik (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0294427) and Franklin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0003270) to claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10, 13 through 16, 18, and 19. Ground 2A applies a YouTube review video of a Spigen Thin Fit Hybrid phone case, which the petition calls Spigen and says was publicly available at least by March 3, 2016, together with Partovi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0050164), to claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 16, 18, and 19. Ground 2B adds Fathollahi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0265767) for claim 12.
IPR2026-00492 challenges claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, and 10 of the '223 patent on two grounds, Wojcik with Franklin and the Spigen video with Partovi.
In its mandatory notices, Magnova identifies itself as the real party in interest and lists as related matters the other proceeding and Magnova LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00056 (W.D. Tex.), which involves both patents. Its updated notices add, without conceding the point, the name of the company that manages Magnova.
What the claims cover
Claim 1 of the '119 patent covers a case for an electronic device that has a wireless charging receiver coil formed between an inner boundary and an outer boundary. The case comprises a hard protective cover, external to the device, with a recess that faces the device, and a metal plate received in the recess that enables magnetic retention or attachment of the case to a support having a magnet. The plate has a rounded concave edge and is positioned to substantially allow magnetic waves to pass through the area formed by the coil's inner boundary.
Claim 1 of the '223 patent covers a case for an electronic device that has a wireless charging receiver coil formed between an inner boundary and an outer boundary. The case comprises a protective cover that receives the device and a metal plate, made of a magnet that produces magnetic flux, that sits between the cover and the device. The plate is positioned to substantially allow magnetic waves to pass through the area formed by the coil's inner boundary and does not overlap an orthographic parallel projection of that area.
The district court case
Magnova sued Apple on February 19, 2026, in Magnova LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00056 (W.D. Tex.), asserting the '223 patent in Count I and the '119 patent in Count II. The complaint says Magnova is the sole owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in both patents. It alleges, on information and belief, that Apple makes, uses, sells, and imports certain iPhone cases with a protective cover and a metal plate that does not interfere with wireless charging, including MagSafe-compatible cases, that infringe, and it says Magnova will identify the accused products in its infringement contentions.
What to watch next
The Board's September 25, 2026 notices state that the patent owner may file a brief requesting discretionary denial within two months from the date of the notice, that the petitioner may file a brief opposing that request within three months from the date of the notice, and that the patent owner may file a preliminary response no later than three months from the date of the notice. Watch for those filings, a ruling on the request to correct the caption, and the institution decisions.