Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5301–5400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims and dismissing the related district court case, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Nielsen’s U.S. Patent 11,871,058 covering methods to determine media presentation duration from set‑top‑box tuning data. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar, and seeks institution of the IPR.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed a petition to cancel Number 14 B.V.’s 7,812,665 op‑amp offset‑calibration patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,973,596, arguing they are obvious over Pertijs and Tang prior art. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Apotex Inc. et al. v.Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
Apotex petitions the PTAB to review US 7,919,499, covering a long‑acting naltrexone formulation, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Comer, Nuwayser, Rubio and Wright. The petition cites a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for inter partes review of XtreamEdge’s U.S. Patent No. 10,944,634, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑management patents. The petition challenges all 20 claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that ControlTec's patent claims are obvious over prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR and a trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on analogous teachings in refrigeration equipment patents.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems in an IPR against XtreamEdge, finding they failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board specifically rejected arguments that prior art references taught the specific bandwidth determination limitations of the challenged claims.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding European Patent EP4070727. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of the proceedings, with no cost decision requested. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant, amounting to EUR 7,400, while setting the value of the cases at EUR 4,000,000.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_468/2023 Final decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/01/2025 concerning confirmation by the Court of a settlement APPLICANT C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn, The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Rep
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 case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,798,006 was met with a detailed response from Four Batons Wireless, arguing the denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and APA. The Board has not yet ruled on the Director Review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute involved applications seeking rejection of plaint and revocation of leave to sue in a copyright infringement matter. The fifth defendant argued lack of territorial jurisdiction and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose within Chennai, it retained jurisdiction, thus dismissing both applications.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung Electronics and Headwater Research settled their disputes across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00482, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner also withdrew its request for Director Review or Rehearing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
CosMX seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde’s battery patent. The request argues that conflicting claim constructions in two parallel petitions require denial under the Director’s guidance and discretionary authority.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s attempt to overturn a PTAB institution of a lithium‑battery patent, arguing the parallel‑petition issue is moot and the Board’s decision was proper and efficient.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The USPTO denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00431, leaving the institution of Ningde Amperex's battery patent intact.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology's lithium‑ion battery patent, arguing that the claimed electrolyte ratios and electrode compaction ranges are obvious in view of Zeng, Sunose, Matsuoka, Kim and other references. The petitioner seeks a finding that all 17 claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the challenged claims related to lithium-ion battery electrolytes were obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully argued that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would be motivated to combine elements from Zeng, Sunose, and Matsuoka to achieve improved performance. This ruling advances the scope of obviousness findings in advanced energy storage technology.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement related to 'behind the scenes (BTS)' footage from the film "NAANUM ROWDY DHAAN". The fifth defendant challenged the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit filed by Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, arguing lack of territorial nexus and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, it retained territorial jurisdiction, thus dismissing the challenges.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002, in which patent attorney Christian Läufer requested access to court filings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure as a member of the public for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) raised objections to the request. The presiding judge granted the applicant access to the filings and annexes in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, but not to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendant in infringement proceedings for the Local Chamber Munich to order the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant argued that the plaintiff, a small enterprise, lacked sufficient financial means, citing a low credit rating and recent operating losses. The court ordered security for costs but reduced the amount based on equity considerations, while rejecting the plaintiff's application for legal aid because it was capable of bearing both its own costs and the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The plaintiff Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. brought the action against three ASUS entities. The presiding judge scheduled an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich, with deadlines for parties to submit proposed topics and cost estimates.
UPC Decision UPC-000979 v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a cost reimbursement application filed by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited following the withdrawal of its request for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant initially sought 60% reimbursement of court fees but, following a court indication, amended its request to seek 20% reimbursement pursuant to Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, applied analogously. The Local Division Munich found that Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which literally governs fee reimbursement upon withdrawal of a 'claim' under Rule 265, applies analogously to the withdrawal of a request for interim measures due to a regulatory gap and comparable interest situation.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
The defendant in an underlying patent infringement proceeding applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and recent operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the application and alternatively sought legal aid. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the plaintiff to provide security in a reduced amount, finding that although the plaintiff qualified as a small enterprise with insufficient assets, equity considerations and the principle of effective access to justice warranted a reduction below the applicant's requested EUR 257,000. Legal aid was denied because the plaintiff was capable of bearing both its own costs and the reduced security.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Sinotechnix's LED illumination lens patent, arguing that prior‑art lenses (Tawa, Shikama, Scharf) render the claims obvious or anticipated. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTD v.THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom patent holder KPN settled multi‑jurisdictional litigation by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement covering several audio/video coding patents. The agreement provides Samsung with a perpetual license and KPN with a covenant not to sue, and mandates dismissal of all pending lawsuits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Sanofi Mature IP
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68843/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, while confirming the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025. The written proceedings are set to close on May 14, 2025, and parties may submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing until May 23, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung’s Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group after the parties settled, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp. The settlement agreement is treated as business‑confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over a emissions‑control patent. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
M/s.Nico Quality Products v.M/s.N.C.Arya Snuff & Cigar Co.
This complex litigation before the Madras High Court revolves around the ownership and use of registered trademarks related to snuff and cigar products. M/s. Nico Quality Products sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement and passing-off by M/s. N.C. Arya Snuff & Cigar Co., while other parties challenged the validity of an assignment deed. The court addressed multiple suits concerning trademark rights, including declarations regarding the legality of assignments.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.