Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5701–5800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,123,035 covering PH20 hyaluronidase mutants. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of the claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.
Advanced Bionics AG , Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmb
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 4074373 titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' which relates to magnetic arrangements in implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants that are compatible with magnetic resonance imaging. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action against MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, the registered proprietor, while MED-EL filed a counterclaim for revocation. The dispute centers on issues of insufficiency of disclosure, added matter, and lack of inventive step, with the panel noting that the inventor cannot be examined as a witness due to potential direct interest in the outcome.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. After the written procedure was concluded, the parties agreed to withdraw all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning two combined cases (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The plaintiff Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (Japan) sought extensions of deadlines for filing its reply to the infringement action and its response to the counterclaim for revocation. After the Rapporteur initially extended deadlines to December 23, 2024, the plaintiff's representative filed a further request on December 23, 2024 seeking an additional extension until December 27, 2024, citing the responsible attorney's ongoing medical treatment and inability to complete the briefs.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the writ petition filed by Neeraj Jain against the Controller General of Patents. Crucially, the court condoned a 36-day delay in filing the petition itself. The core matter involves challenging an order that declared the petitioner's design application abandoned due to a belatedly filed Power of Attorney. Notice has been issued, setting the stage for further arguments on the merits of the abandonment claim.
Phonepe Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.AGF Finlease India Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Phonepe Pvt Ltd against AGF Finlease India Ltd and others. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks like 'PHONEPEY' and 'PHONEPEY LOAN,' leading to infringement, passing off, and dilution of PhonePe's goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered a restraint on the use of these marks across various platforms and directed the suspension of specific domains and social media accounts.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Tilaknagar Industries Limited & Ors
In a suit concerning alleged trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. Crucially, regarding the interim injunction application, the court accepted the defendants' commitment to immediately stop using the disputed label on new products as of December 26, 2024. This temporary relief is subject to the defendants exhausting their existing stock bearing the impugned label, which they must detail in an affidavit.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v.Two Star Media Private Limited
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of a deceptively similar trademark (LIVE TIMES) registered by Two Star Media Private Limited. The petitioner argued that its own trademarks, 'TIMES' and its family, are prior, extensively used since 1943, and highly reputed. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on trademark infringement and similarity.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Wipro Gas Service & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Wipro Gas Service & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'WIPRO,' which it alleged was being infringed and used deceptively by the defendants. Given that the defendant failed to appear despite service, the court found a prima facie case existed, leading to an immediate restraint order on the use of the identical mark.
Rahul Mishra & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.
Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. v.John Doe/ Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. against John Doe and others. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents. Crucially, the court permitted specific service methods—such as email communication via designated Grievance Officers—for defendants located outside India or those identified as DNRs (Defendant Not Represented), while also exempting the plaintiff from advance service upon Defendant No. 1 due to the urgent nature of the relief sought.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1) The intervener must proof an interest justifying the support to the reasons of one of the
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested leave to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Division Munich's August 30, 2024 decision revoking European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action brought by Avago Technologies against Tesla entities. After Avago filed an appeal, Tesla filed a cost determination application, which Tesla subsequently sought to withdraw. Avago also sought leave to withdraw the main action. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application, declared those proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs in the cost determination proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 Concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against a patent covering multimedia content delivery systems. The Board found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing across multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, moving the case to the merits phase.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. v.M/S EVERGREEN VENEERS PVT. LTD.
The plaintiff, Greenply Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark 'GREEN' against the defendant, Evergreen Veneers Pvt. Ltd., who was using the mark 'EVERGREEN' on similar goods (plywood products). The court examined issues of delay and trademark similarity.
Evergreen Sweet House v.JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd. v.Mr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.
pharma-aktiva GmbH, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG v.G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, a pharmaceutical company marketing the head lice treatment NYDA®, filed an application for preliminary measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several ALDI group entities (ALDI SÜD, ALDI Nord, ALDI SE & Co. KG, and Hofer KG) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1, which concerns a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs. The applicant challenged the sale of a competing lice spray marketed as 'Vitalis Läuse Spray' in Germany and 'ACTIV MED Läusespray' in Austria. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on December 20, 2024, following an oral hearing on December 12, 2024, addressing the application for interim measures under Rule 206 RoP.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG for access to the case files of an ongoing patent infringement action between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH (defendants) concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692. HARTING, which had filed an opposition against the patent in suit before the European Patent Office (joined by defendant ILME GmbH), sought access to the briefs and evidence filed in the main infringement proceedings to properly defend its interests in both the opposition proceedings and related utility model infringement actions. The Local Chamber Munich held that an opponent in a pending opposition proceeding concerning the patent in suit has a legal interest in accessing the case files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during the ongoing proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_22/2023) involving European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, against Vizgen, Inc. The dispute centers on Plaintiff Harvard's third request to amend the patent, filed on October 25, 2024, which was rejected by the Rapporteur's order of November 8, 2024. The Local Chamber Hamburg reviewed the order under Rule 333.1 RoP and confirmed the rejection, holding that approximately three months between the alleged reason for the amendment and the filing of the request was too long under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against U.S. Patent 10,123,074, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Avellan. The decision confirmed that 'content provider' does not require originating the request.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ParTec AG's patent, challenging claims related to heterogeneous computing and dynamic task remapping. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations (Lippert, Budenske, Kambatla).
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.