Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5601–5700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
M/s.TTK Prestige Limited v.Sarvodaya Industries
M/s. TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Sarvodaya Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'PROTEIN' to infringe upon the registered trademarks and artistic logo of 'PRESTIGE'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which the court subsequently recorded and decreed.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case was filed for a permanent injunction against NATCO PHARMA for infringing on Novartis's Indian Patent No. 233161. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the proceedings.
Apollo Pipes Ltd v.Nirmal Polymers
Apollo Pipes Ltd filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Nirmal Polymers for infringing its well-known trademarks ('APOLLO', 'APL APOLLO'). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks like 'A ONE APOLLO' in relation to PVC pipes and building material products, causing financial loss and damaging goodwill. The court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of Apollo Pipes Ltd.
Under Armour, Inc v.Pro-Train Sports Llp & Ors
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Under Armour against Pro-Train Sports LLP, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical trade and business operations, including the use of similar logos (a bull), the court opted not to grant the exemption. Instead, it referred the matter to Pre-Institution Mediation, setting a date for January 15, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung seeks to uphold an IPR institution on Wilus’s Wi‑Fi packet‑format patent, while Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the institution, arguing errors on public accessibility, discretionary denial, and claim‑construction inconsistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Wilus's patent 11,159,210. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s IPR petition was granted, instituting review of all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G paging patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art You, Liu, and Mallick.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
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. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to stay court deadlines while they finalize the agreement.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent, asserting obviousness over Liu and Park publications. The petition details a predictable combination of prior‑art teachings and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent covering netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone regimens. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the asserted unexpected synergy. No decision has been issued yet.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s anti-emetic patent (8623826). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 19, allowing the challenge based on obviousness over prior art like MASCC and Hoffmann.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. successfully secured institution of its IPR against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent (9186357) for anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims would be unpatentable over prior art, specifically regarding the combination of triple-drug CINV treatment and superior NK antagonists.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR2025-00840, favoring Intellectual Ventures II LLC's request for discretionary denial. The decision cited parallel district court and IPR proceedings as reasons to conserve resources.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
The parties to IPR2025‑00825 settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
IKEA and Pointwise jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement in IPR2025-00798 be treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board’s decision on the confidentiality request is pending.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00798 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding per settlement and statutory provisions.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Court decision.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Berggren Oy v.Respondent
This order addressed a request by Berggren Oy, a firm of UPC representatives, for access to all written pleadings and evidence lodged in a completed revocation action between NanoString Technologies Europe Limited and President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP2794928. The Court held the request admissible and, weighing the public interest in transparency against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, granted access after redaction of personal data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Neither party to the main proceedings objected to the request.
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. v.Kuppanna Foods
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd filed suit against Kuppanna Foods, among others, alleging multiple infringements across trademarks and copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'KUPPANNA FOODS' and 'Kuppanna', as well as damages for dilution and tarnishment. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the Memorandum of Compromise.
Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.
This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an infringement action against three Netgear entities, who filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Both parties agreed to have the infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred with this request.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.
M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison’s petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement 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 No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for invalidity involving European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge previously assigned to the case, Patrice Vidon, resigned pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Statutes. To ensure continuity of the panel's composition, the presiding judge requested the assignment of a replacement technically qualified judge effective January 1, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 FINAL ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30/12/2024 Order no. ORD_60558/2024 Head notes 1. In proceedings for costs decision under rules 150 RoP et seq. an already existing decision on costs in pr
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants to reject at an early stage the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its claims under Rule 263 RoP, which was based on a conditional application to amend the patent-in-suit (EP2642632) under Rule 30 RoP filed in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued that procedural economy required an early decision on the admissibility of the underlying patent amendment request. The court declined to make a preliminary decision on the substantive admissibility of the claim amendment, holding that such decisions of this magnitude should generally be left to the main proceedings and the oral hearing.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs in the proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent had already been ordered to provide security of EUR 300,000.00, and Microsoft sought an increase to at least EUR 500,000.00, or alternatively EUR 300,000.00. The respondent requested dismissal or, alternatively, significantly lower security amounts. The Court observed that the request, although framed as one for additional security, actually amounted to a request to modify the existing security by increasing its amount.
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.
Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review under Rule 333 RoP of an order granting security for costs of EUR 300,000.00 in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant requested reduction of the security to EUR 100,000.00, citing its subsequent application to reduce the damages claimed. The respondent argued the request was inadmissible and unfounded. The Court addressed the admissibility of the application, clarifying that incorrect citation of legal provisions does not prevent consideration of the motion, and that parties may apply to revoke or vary a security order when factual circumstances change.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal proceeding concerned a request by Syngenta Limited to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25, a German-language document attached to its Statement of Response. Sumi Agro, the opposing party, took no position and left the matter to the Court's discretion. The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled that the exhibit did not need to be translated, granting Syngenta's request.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has sought a Director Review of the PGR, and Merck has 5 business days to file a brief response without new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.