Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5401–5500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
NJOY Netherlands B.V v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
P.T.S. Machinery B.V. v.Mammoet Holding B.V.
The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/01/2025 regarding the preserving of evidence APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam – NL Represented
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr v.Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr, to amend their original plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that introducing subsequent trade mark registrations, evidence of enhanced goodwill, and relevant judicial records did not change the nature or character of the existing dispute. This decision allows the plaintiffs to strengthen their case by incorporating new statutory rights acquired after the suit's inception.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This is a revocation action filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance, concerning European patent EP 3 626 092, which relates to vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The claimant seeks revocation of the patent with effect across multiple European territories, arguing lack of inventive step. The patent was filed on 14 March 2014 with priority dates of 12 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, and was also subject to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/01/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1) XSYS Germany GmbH, Industriestraße 1, 77731 Willstätt - G
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,244,284 covering a display apparatus and video processing method, arguing that claims 18‑20 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references involving dual‑radio devices, Bluetooth, WLAN, and related standards.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent No. EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the Court to declare the proceedings closed without a cost decision. The Court applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and, finding no legitimate interest in adjudication, permitted the withdrawals and closed the proceedings.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 20/01/2025 REQUÉRANT N.J DIFFUSION SARL 44 Rue Paul Valéry 75016 PARIS - FR Représenté par Catherine Mateu INTIMÉ - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsd
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. Amazon, the appellant and defendant in the main infringement proceedings, sought to classify certain information from its appeal and appeal brief as confidential. The disputed information relates to licensing negotiations between the parties, the defendants' business model, and details about licensees and license agreements of the plaintiff Nokia. The underlying case concerns European Patent EP 2 661 892, with the Local Division Munich having previously rejected Amazon's request for disclosure of unredacted documents on December 16, 2024.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,459,151, citing public‑policy reasons for early termination.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN settled all patent disputes by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement that grants Samsung worldwide rights to KPN’s patents and ends the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,549,151 patent covering SIP/RTSP gateway functionality. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds citing Alston, Gateva, Mela, and Fajardo. Institutional decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and KPN settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate six inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00512 covering U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
1 DECISION of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division Paris Seat (Section 1) delivered on 17 January 2025 concerning EP 3 430 921 B1 KEYWORDS: Revocation, claim interpretation, clarity, added matter, admission of auxiliary claims CLAIMAN
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714 before the Local Division Munich. Before the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached a contractual agreement, and NEC declared withdrawal of the action. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by NEC.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning four related patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants, a group of Sanofi entities, sought substitution of Sanofi Mature IP by Sanofi SA following a corporate reorganization in which Sanofi Mature IP was dissolved without liquidation and its assets, including the patent in suit, were universally transferred to Sanofi SA. The defendants raised no objections at the preliminary interim conference, and the Court granted the substitution, holding that it had no consequence on the proceedings under Rules 306 and 310 RoP.
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court rejected an infringement action brought by an individual plaintiff against OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV concerning European Patent 3 216 430. The court found neither literal infringement nor infringement by equivalence, holding that without functional equivalence no infringement by equivalence can be established under any equivalence test. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the temporal condition for substantive proceedings following an evidence preservation order under Rule 198(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,667,669 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled multiple U.S., German and Chinese patent lawsuits via a comprehensive license and non‑assertion agreement covering several KPN patents.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. opposes Coretronic and Optoma's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,549,226, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success due to flawed claim constructions and insufficient prior‑art support. The Patent Owner seeks denial of institution.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cambridge Industries' request to review the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Applied Optoelectronics' patents, leaving the prior institution denials in place.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis’s intranasal benzodiazepine patent are obvious over prior art references Gwozdz, Meezan ’962, and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision was denied after the Board found the petitioner failed to justify inconsistent claim‑construction positions across the IPR and district court.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its data‑analytics patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored required consistency in claim construction and the indefiniteness of claim terms, making the institution improper.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under PTAB rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp petitioned an IPR on BirchTech's patents. A settlement was reached with MidAmerican Energy, leading the Board to terminate the IPR for MidAmerican while keeping it open for the other petitioners.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against BirchTech's patent as to WEC Energy Group following a settlement, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and other petitioners.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the patent owner's Director Review request. They argue the petitions are timely, lack real‑party or privity issues, and that the Board is the most efficient forum for resolving the mercury‑control patent challenges.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and BirchTech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement‑driven termination.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates moved to terminate IPR 2025-00278 after reaching a confidential settlement with Birchtech Corp. The parties seek to keep the settlement agreement sealed under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of DataFeel’s 12,036,174 patent covering percussive massage devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of written description and enablement. It also argues the Board should not invoke the Fintiv discretionary denial provision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to review PayRange’s 2024 patent covering mobile‑device‑driven vending‑machine payments. The petition asserts anticipation, obviousness, and § 101 ineligibility for all 20 claims, citing Low, Arora, Freeny and Casey as prior art.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PayRange’s 2024 mobile‑payment patent covering vending‑machine transactions, arguing obviousness and patent‑ineligibility. The petition also rebuts any discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on enablement and obviousness grounds in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the patent documents supported a broad definition of modified PH20 polypeptides, while noting the petitioner had established a likelihood of prevailing on enablement but failed to prove obviousness.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Applied Optoelectronics Inc.'s patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102). The Board specifically rejected arguments based on prior art references Shen and Soldano regarding optical receiving devices.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted to the plaintiff. The court considered arguments that the plaintiff had suppressed facts, specifically claiming they only discovered the infringing product on 30th October 2024, when in fact they were aware of the defendant's mark since 2018. Consequently, the court vacated the injunction and referred the matter to mediation.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a bifurcation request in patent infringement proceedings before the Hamburg Local Division. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP2792100, sought to have the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation referred to the Central Division Paris while the infringement action continued in Hamburg. The Defendants, comprising various Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc., had initially requested a stay of the infringement proceedings pending resolution of the revocation matter. The Claimant argued that separating the proceedings would ensure procedural economy and timely resolution of urgent commercial matters.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order by the President of the Court of First Instance concerning an application by NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under R. 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The main infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG based on European patents EP3743812 and EP2628080, both granted in English. NVIDIA argued that English should be adopted as the language of proceedings because it is the language of the patents, while the Claimants opposed the change. The order sets out the parties' positions and the points at issue for the court's consideration.