Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4901–5000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 relating to a Boost Power Factor Correction (Boost-PFC) circuit, with claims 7 to 10 at issue. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court rejected new attacks on the validity of the patent that were raised for the first time during the oral hearing, holding that strategic tactics aimed at surprise effects are foreign to the Rules of Procedure.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi 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.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl v.The Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala seeking the rectification of a trademark registration held by another party. The court observed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for rectification before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition but directed the Registrar to expedite the consideration and passing of orders on the existing rectification application within six weeks.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
President and Fellows of Harvard College, 10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns three appeals filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against orders of the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings against Vizgen concerning EP 4108782. The Court of First Instance had partially granted Vizgen's three requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents. 10x filed appeals against those orders but subsequently applied for withdrawal of all three appeals, to which Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals and noted that no cost decision was necessary since both parties had waived cost claims.
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
Mukesh Chand Khandelwal Trading As M/S Khandelwal Brothers v.M/S S N Biri Factory Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal filed by Mukesh Chand Khandelwal. The court condoned an eight-day delay in refiling the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. The case challenges the Registrar's decision that dismissed the appellant's trademark application due to a successful opposition filed by the respondent.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'YATRI' and 'SAHYATRI', constituted infringement of the plaintiff's renowned trademarks ('YATRI' and 'YC') and copyright associated with electric vehicles. This order provides immediate protection to YC Electric Vehicle while the main suit proceeds.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Device and Ltd. v.Unomedical A/S and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes against a previous decision by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court set aside the impugned order, which had previously dismissed the opposition filed by Hindustan Syringes regarding the mark 'UNOMEDICAL'. Furthermore, based on the parties' consent, the court also allowed a rectification petition, leading to the cancellation of UNOMEDICAL's trademark registration in Class 10. This decision significantly impacts the validity and scope of the contested brand.
Epikindifi Software And Solutions Pty Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed rectification petitions filed by Epikindifi Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks LEND.EZEE (No. 6174368 and 6174369). The court noted a procedural error in the filing, specifically regarding the petitioner's name. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a corrected Memo of Parties within one week. Further proceedings were scheduled after granting time for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
Pfizer SA, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer B.V., Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer Oy, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.r.l., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfize v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
M/s.Nirmala Transportation and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Nirmala Transportation's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's arguments regarding the distinct nature of services (goods transport vs. travel arrangements). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Registrar, contingent upon the appellant providing an undertaking restricting its use to goods transportation.
Jan Aushadhi Sangh v.M/S. Pharmaceuticals And Medical Devices Bureau of India (PMBI)
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jan Aushadhi Sangh challenging a lower court's judgment that granted injunction and damages to PMBI for trademark infringement. While the core dispute over the injunction was maintained, the High Court provided relief regarding the financial aspect of the ruling. The appellant was permitted to stay the execution of the Rs. 10 lakh damage award upon depositing Rs. 5 lakhs with the court, though the injunction against further alleged infringement remains in force.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Applicant v.Defendant
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_142/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 March 2025 Applicant […] represented by: […] electronic address for service: […] Defendant […] PATENT AT ISSUE: […] PANEL/DIVISION: Lo
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, following a Court of Appeal determination that the claimant's appointed representative could not validly serve as a representative of the legal person due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers. The judge-rapporteur invited written submissions from the parties on the consequences of this inability to serve. The claimant requested that the representative be allowed to continue or, alternatively, be given time to correct the representation configuration, while the defendant sought rejection of the action as manifestly inadmissible and a default decision revoking the patent in the counterclaim proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, ***
This case concerns European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and involves a dispute over the release of evidence-secured CAD files to the applicant and the collection of penalty payments. The applicant, Hybridgenerator ApS, had obtained an evidence preservation order from the Local Division in Copenhagen on August 26, 2024, which was executed by the bailiff court in Svendborg on August 30, 2024. However, the evidence preservation was not completed because the respondents refused to provide usernames and passwords to their cloud-based economic system (e-conomics) and email, in violation of the Court's order.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
AfterWords, Inc. filed a preliminary response opposing GetTattle’s IPR petition, contending that the cited prior art does not disclose the patented Survey Module and therefore the petition should be denied.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.
M/S A & J Designers v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S A & J Designers successfully challenged the non-renewal of their 'Paris' trademark registration in the Kerala High Court. The petitioner argued that they were never served with the renewal notice because the respondents had mistakenly sent it to the wrong address due to a typographical error. The court found merit in this claim, allowing the writ petition and directing the competent authority to issue fresh notice and renew the registration expeditiously.
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha v.Mr. Devender Kumar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha against a rejection of its trademark application for 'R3' in Class 12. The court found that the original rejection failed to consider key arguments, including the appellant's claim that R3 was an associated mark and their existing portfolio of related marks (like YZF-R3). Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited v.Hector Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited, upholding the interim injunction granted to Hector Beverages Private Limited. The court found that despite differences in surrounding words and product types (energy drink vs. juice), the core mark 'SWING' is predominant and highly similar. Given that both products are allied and sold across the same counter, the court ruled that there is a clear likelihood of customer confusion, favoring the established goodwill of Hector Beverages.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have settled their IPR dispute over a respiratory‑rate patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems' IPR petition against PayRange LLC was denied, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 7 and 11 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments combining prior art references (Low, Arora, Freeny, Casey) to establish obviousness.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved with NL Giken to terminate IPR2025-00407 over U.S. Patent 8,677,391 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and notes the institution decision is still pending.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and ASSIA have settled their dispute over a DSL‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority to end the proceeding before any merits are decided and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
Court decision.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit disclosure to federal agencies only.
RingConn, LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent (11769910). The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references, including Zeng and Zhou. This ruling advances a critical battery technology dispute into trial.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
International N&H Denmark ApS, Virdia Inc. v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
Cellectis v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cellectis appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method involving T-Cells. The appeal sought permission to file amended claims and complete specification. The court examined whether these amendments were permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited v.Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademarks, 'Niva' and 'Bupa,' through content creation and circulation. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the trademark infringement claims and noted that the matter required specialized handling. Consequently, the court ordered the papers to be placed before the IP Division of the Court for appropriate listing.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Respondent
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited's European Patent EP 2043492 before the Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, prompting the claimant to request withdrawal of the revocation action and closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Respondent
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.