Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 121 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Apr 29, 2025

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

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000738

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) issued a cost decision following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. The applicant, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, sought reimbursement of costs from the respondents, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally within three weeks.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 29, 2025

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

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000737

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against 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.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 12,021,679 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,139,944 covering downlink control information. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Court decision.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have settled with Advanced Cluster Systems and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, keeping it separate from the public patent file.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Intel and AMD filed a joint motion to keep their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,570,034, leaving Intel as the remaining petitioner.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

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

· PGR2025-00046

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC

· IPR2025-00950

Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00891

Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC

· IPR2025-00838

Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Apr 29, 2025

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

· PGR2025-00046

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
1 •••120121122•••453
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →