Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4201–4300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
M/S. Panchajanya Features v.Bommareddy Ashok Reddy
This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Trial Court's refusal to transfer a copyright dispute concerning the Telugu movie "Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha Vinthalu" to the specialized Commercial Court. The petitioners argued that since the matter involved intellectual property rights and exceeded the specified pecuniary threshold, it inherently fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, setting aside the Trial Court's order and allowing the petition for rejection of the suit.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.
Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. v.Madhu Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. seeking the rectification or revocation of an impugned trademark registration (Application No. 1880542) in Class 35, which was granted to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners initially sought various interim injunctions and reliefs against multiple respondents, but subsequently withdrew claims against certain parties. The Court proceeded by deleting the withdrawn respondents and issued notice to the remaining parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders.
M/S. Rashik Soap Factory v.The Registrar Of Copyright & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S. Rashik Soap Factory to amend its ongoing petition by incorporating a subsequent trademark registration. The petitioner sought to update the court record, confirming that they had acquired ownership of Trademark No. 4176479 through an assignment deed during the pendency of the case. This order allows the petitioner to formally bring this change in IP ownership before the court, ensuring all relevant facts are on record for the ongoing litigation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, which is crucial given the immediate need for evidence collection. Most notably, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged counterfeit 'HERO' branded auto parts, thereby bolstering the plaintiffs' case for injunction and damages.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This procedural order concerns the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim proceedings involving European Patent No. EP 2 892 442 B1. The applicant Aesculap AG sought interim measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found it necessary and appropriate to supplement the panel with a technically qualified judge at the interim stage, given the substantive validity challenges raised and the likelihood that such a judge would also be needed in parallel main proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order was issued by the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 against six Anker-related entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The dispute concerned the establishment of uniform service dates and time periods for all defendants. The court granted the parties' joint request to set a uniform service date of 30 April 2025 for all defendants, with preliminary objection deadlines ending on 30 May 2025 and statement of defence deadlines ending on 30 July 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS, Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, Gucci Logistica S.p.A.
AGFA NV, a Belgium-based company specializing in industrial inkjet technology, sued nine European entities belonging to the French luxury conglomerate Kering (including Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and related companies) in connection with European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 titled 'Decorating Natural Leather.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Local Division Hamburg addressed key issues including the scope of counterclaim attacks under Articles 32(1)(e) and 65(1) UPCA, claim interpretation using the patent as its own lexicon, and the admissibility of late-filed validity arguments and prior art documents introduced for the first time at the oral hearing.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V, The Walt Disney Company Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 323 RoP by the Defendants (various Disney entities and BAMTech) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP2449782. The Claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., had initiated proceedings on 3 February 2025. The order addresses the procedural requirements for hearing all potentially affected parties before a language change can be granted, and clarifies that changing the language to the language of the patent does not conflict with the Claimant's initial choice under R. 14.1 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, arguing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority. The petition highlights conflicts with the Celgene precedent and procedural violations under the APA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung contests the patent owner’s arguments that the Lee and Choudhury references do not teach the claimed BSS‑color disabling features. The petitioner seeks denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, keeping the IPR instituted.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on FRACTUS’s 8,810,458 patent covering antenna placement in portable devices, asserting that the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues both §103 obviousness and §102 prior‑art grounds and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others
The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)
The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision in a patent revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court confirmed its prior reasoning that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not suitable for a decision on the merits, and therefore does not require a separate decision on costs. The Court held that such costs can be claimed and assessed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation proceedings that concluded with the default decision.
Scandit Inc, Scandit AG v.Respondent
Hand Held Products Inc. brought an infringement action against Scandit AG and Scandit Inc. concerning European Patent EP4163816, and Scandit filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before substantive adjudication, the parties reached a settlement and both filed applications to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Division in The Hague granted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by each claimant.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an application for a cost decision against Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, seeking reimbursement of EUR 112,300.00. The respondents objected to the amount, certain travel expenses, and requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal against the decision on the merits. The Court rejected the request for a stay, holding that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not justify suspending cost proceedings, as this would allow the unsuccessful party to indefinitely delay cost decisions.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to certain confidential documents (referred to as 'Asustek Confidential Documents') in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European patent EP3076673. The Defendants sought to limit access to the unredacted versions of these documents to a defined circle of individuals, including the Claimant's authorized representatives, one private licensing/valuation expert, and one named natural person from the Claimant. The Claimant filed a response to the application, and the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order granting the Claimant time to file comments.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP2642632. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's arguments regarding the patentability of auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A, raised in the reply to the patent amendment request, disregarded as late-filed under Rule 9.2 RoP. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that when auxiliary requests combine previously explained auxiliary requests, a reference to those earlier explanations in the patent amendment request is sufficient, and that merely deepening submissions in the reply does not constitute late filing.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. , Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3953541, owned by Viking Arm AS, which initiated an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. The parties subsequently reached a mutual agreement to discontinue the proceedings, with Viking Arm withdrawing the infringement action and Stanley withdrawing the counterclaim for revocation.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 430 921, which arose from a revocation action between Juul Labs International Inc. and NJOY Netherlands B.V. The Court found Nicoventures had a direct interest as a party to related validity proceedings. Access was granted subject to a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the appeal is concluded.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.