Patent Cases

Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.

· IPR2025-00696

Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.

Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB

· IPR2025-00690

Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-00656

Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00638

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

· IPR2025-00239

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.

patent instituted · Jul 3, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00478

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00033

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.

patent denied · Jul 3, 2025

Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH

· PGR2025-00037

Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.

patent instituted · Jul 3, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00478

The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.

patent interim order · Jul 3, 2025

Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 64698338

Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.

patent pending · Jul 3, 2025

Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Array Biopharma, Inc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 89079965

The petitioner filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN304285 ('ERBB Inhibitors') granted to Respondent No. 1 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding filing documents and extensions of time.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 3, 2025

Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 90041659

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.

patent settled · Jul 3, 2025

Network 18 Media And Investments Ltd v.Tv Today Network Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 37937696

The Delhi High Court disposed of trademark cancellation petitions filed by Network 18 Media against Tv Today Network Ltd. and others. The resolution was reached through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 on July 1, 2025. Both parties confirmed their adherence to the terms of this agreement, leading the Court to close the proceedings without further litigation.

patent mixed · Jul 3, 2025

Sahil Sachdeva & Anr. v.Ayush Dhingra & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 85957121

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit, granting plaintiffs several procedural exemptions crucial for urgent relief. Notably, the court exempted the plaintiffs from providing advance service to defendants, recognizing the risk that defendants might destroy evidence. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to inventory and seize infringing products and inspect relevant books of accounts, setting the stage for immediate enforcement against alleged trademark infringers.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000587

Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000586

QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., ESTHETEC SAS, Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l.

Quantificare S.A. brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 against five defendants, who in turn filed a revocation counterclaim. The Chamber addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs combined infringement and revocation proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Chamber ordered a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), and instructed the Rapporteur to request the assignment of a technically qualified judge.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000585

Corning Incorporated v.Respondent

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00540

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00540

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00557

The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00539

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.

Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00475

Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.

International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00599

IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.

patent instituted · Jul 2, 2025

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC

· IPR2025-00361

AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00562

Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.