Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5201–5300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests the Board not to deny institution on discretionary grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB instituted the review and ultimately held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Swartz references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a wireless‑device patent, arguing anticipation by Mgrdechian and obviousness in view of Kulakowski. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies. The petition relies on the Eagle prior‑art system to argue anticipation and obviousness, and urges the Board to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, leading the PTAB to find all eight claims of the challenged patent unpatentable. The Board held that the prior‑art references Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim limitation.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of the ’896 patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that prior‑art systems (Perttila, Emmons, Insolia, etc.) make the claims obvious under §103. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged U.S. Patent 11,687,971, a proximity‑based wireless communication system, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the Eagle reference anticipates and renders obvious each claim limitation.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless transaction patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims unpatentable, while two claims remained upheld.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references (Mgrdechian, Swartz, Kulakowski) under §§102 and 103. Google seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate a suite of claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated exchange of loyalty and coupon data between wireless devices. The petition relies on the Perttila and Insolia references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute inter partes review against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11687971.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
M/S Aravind Laboratories v.Payal Novelty Private Limited
In this trademark dispute concerning the 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi,' the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order. The court directed the respondents to attempt modifications to their product's get-up and trade dress. Furthermore, they must submit copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed while addressing potential infringement concerns.
M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants) v.Compagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
M/S. Arvind Laboratories v.Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhania And Anr
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim direction requiring the respondents to modify the get-up and trade dress of their product, 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi.' The respondents were mandated to forward copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025. This order allows both parties time to adjust the disputed branding while keeping the litigation moving toward a resolution.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers v.Hari Om And Co. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers, against Hari Om And Co. The court cancelled Respondent No. 1's registered mark because the petitioner demonstrated prior and continuous use of the dominant feature 'ROHIT' since 2000, predating the respondent's claim of use in 2005. Given the identical nature of the marks (despite language differences) and the commonality of goods, the court found that allowing the registration would inevitably cause confusion among consumers.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the “settled expectations” standard is a lawful discretionary factor and that Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments fail.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Star India Pvt. Ltd., an entertainment media company, filed a suit against various individuals and entities for the unauthorized dissemination and broadcasting of its copyrighted content through rogue mobile applications and illicit websites. The plaintiffs asserted their exclusive rights over content streamed via STAR Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. Given that the defendants failed to contest the suit by filing a written statement despite being served, the Delhi High Court found them liable for copyright piracy.
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nikita Dubey Rai, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' and associated copyrights in the field of educational services. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'LEARNING EINSTEINS'. However, both parties amicably settled their dispute through a joint memorandum of compromise dated February 6, 2025.
V.T. Varghese v.Jose Jacob and The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by V.T. Varghese seeking rectification and removal of a registered trademark (No. 1334030). The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple scheduled dates despite being given opportunities.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich addressed a preliminary objection raised by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 filed by Ericsson. Motorola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens, as the validity of the same patent was already subject to prior proceedings between the same parties in the same court. The Judge-rapporteur allowed the preliminary objection, holding that Article 33(2) UPCA applies equally when the same parties bring duplicative actions on the same patent before the same division, and dismissed the second counterclaim as inadmissible without a separate costs decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request under Rule 36 RoP filed by the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd, seeking further exchanges of written pleadings in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3155936 against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook. Hurom sought a declaration that certain sections of its Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants were admissible, or alternatively, permission for both parties to submit further statements. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegedly new arguments were mere clarifications and that, as defendants in infringement proceedings, they should have the last word.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties, Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and several Xiaomi entities along with Odiporo GmbH and Shamrock Mobile GmbH as defendants, reached a settlement and jointly withdrew their respective claims regarding European Patent EP 3069315. The court issued the order in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed will and addressed the reimbursement of court fees, granting a 40% reimbursement and rejecting the request for a higher 60% reimbursement.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against U.S. Patent 12,015,118 B2, covering lithium-ion battery electrode structures. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (Ishigaki) and obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
Purple Innovation, Llc v.Mr. Martin Davis Trading As M/S Purple Martin Mattreses And Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Purple Innovation, LLC, to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding three newly registered trademark applications. While the suit continues, the court noted that both parties use deceptively similar marks ('PURPLE' and 'PURPLE MARTIN') for mattresses. The court encouraged a settlement, instructing the plaintiff to consider dropping claims for costs and damages if the defendants agree to adopt a new mark.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V., ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG
This is a preliminary order concerning an application by STADAPHARM GmbH under Rule 261.1(b) RoP seeking access to written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) pending before the Milan Central Division. The main proceedings involve a declaratory non-infringement action brought by three Accord Healthcare Group companies against Novartis AG regarding Novartis's patent EP2501384 (relating to Nilotinib). STADAPHARM claimed a specific interest in accessing the documents because Novartis had obtained a preliminary injunction against STADAPHARM before the Munich Regional Court based on the same patent. The order addresses procedural questions regarding the scope of Rule 262.1(b) access applications, the lodging of non-digitally signed submissions under Rule 4.1 RoP, and the hearing of parties under Rule 264 RoP.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Oracle America, Inc. v.Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Oracle America's petition seeking rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark, JAVATPOINT/. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Oracle's well-established 'JAVA' mark, which has been used since the 1990s. Given the identical target consumer base in educational services (Class 41), the court ruled that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark to ride on Oracle's goodwill and reputation, leading to its removal from the Trade Marks Register.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
Dwarka Matlani v.Jay Daryani
Dwarka Matlani filed a rectification petition challenging the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label and packaging titled 'ROYAL'. The petitioner argued that the registered artwork was a slavish imitation of their own established trademark/label, which they had used since 1997. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the registration process concealed material facts regarding the true ownership of the artistic work. The court found that the respondent's label was an imitation and lacked originality, making it ineligible for copyright protection. Given these findings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the removal of the impugned copyright from the Register.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
Mahle Gmbh v.Madan & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Mahle Gmbh to implead Mr. Ankur Jain (M/s A.J. Enterprises) as a defendant after local commissioner reports found counterfeit 'MAHLE' pistons at his premises. Consequently, the court extended the existing interim injunction order against this newly added party. This decision underscores the judiciary's willingness to ensure all parties involved in counterfeiting activities are brought before the court for proper adjudication.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants jointly requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025. The Presiding Judge granted the request based on the parties' agreement and the minimal extension period involved.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec, LLC seeks Director review to deny institution of an IPR against its 18‑year‑old anti‑sweat controller patent, arguing strong settled expectations and non‑material prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.