Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 131 of 424

patent denied · Apr 25, 2025

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

· IPR2025-00833

The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
patent · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
patent · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00909

Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
patent · Apr 25, 2025

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

· IPR2025-00833

Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.
patent · Apr 25, 2025

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00927

Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00910

Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
patent instituted · Apr 25, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00930

Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
patent instituted · Apr 25, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00911

Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 25, 2025

Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · 102916826

The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 25, 2025

M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 110372013

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000752

This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000751

1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.
patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Court decision.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
patent instituted · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00857

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00856

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent instituted · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 24, 2025

Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India

Madras High Court · 109950834

This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
patent remanded · Apr 24, 2025

Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · 183687612

Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 23, 2025

Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care

Karnataka High Court · P199444299

Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
patent · Apr 23, 2025

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000759

This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
patent · Apr 23, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000758

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in preparation for an oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants in the AYLO group and related entities. The order confirms the hearing dates of May 7-8, 2025, and raises preliminary questions regarding the formulation of the plaintiffs' claims, particularly whether the alleged infringing embodiments have been sufficiently identified and whether the plaintiffs seek cumulative or sequential examination of the multiple streaming services attributed to the defendants.
1 •••130131132•••424
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 →