Patent Cases

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00610

The USPTO denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in four IPRs, leaving the original denial in place.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00609

NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based neural‑network patent, arguing the Board ignored key timing and patent‑age evidence.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00610

NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00609

The USPTO denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a Director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00609, leaving the institution denial in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00936

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’597 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of Lee, Stacey, Zhou, and Choudhury. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.

· IPR2025-00928

Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.

· IPR2025-00929

Geotab petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on FRACTUS’s 8,810,458 patent covering antenna placement in portable devices, asserting that the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues both §103 obviousness and §102 prior‑art grounds and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00931

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’844 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

Suzhou Mojawa has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Shenzhen Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

· IPR2025-00956

Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00955

Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00932

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 10,080,250, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations involving domain‑based security and virtualization. The petition requests institution and a finding of unpatentability.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00610

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP

· IPR2025-00609

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of a reissued patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including its own Nickolls GPU patent, an ANN conference paper, the Tamura Japanese patent, and the GPU Gems book.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00890

Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00782

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.

Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

· IPR2025-00956

Straumann USA, LLC successfully petitioned against Smart Denture Conversions, LLC's patent, leading to institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00936

Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00931

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2025

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00782

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 40891917

Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.

patent mixed · Apr 30, 2025

Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 197814319

Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2025

ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 106547680

ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000742

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in responding to ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000741

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.

This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000740

Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.

This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.