Patent Cases

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

patent denied · Apr 4, 2025

Home Depot seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect’s location‑based advertising patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied claim construction and ignored obviousness of key limitations. The request urges reversal of the denial.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

patent terminated or settled · Apr 4, 2025

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect's patent 8,433,296.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

Home Depot's patent owner H2 Intellect and Samsung settled the related district court case, prompting a joint motion to stay PTAB deadlines. The parties seek a 30‑day stay to finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit.

MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00827

MIM Software seeks an IPR of EXINI Diagnostics' 3D cancer‑lesion segmentation patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition claims the examiner erred by relying on an outdated Hamadeh reference.

ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.

· IPR2025-00749

ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00743

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries' 11,947,716 patent covering head‑mounted devices with flexible displays and keyboards, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.

ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.

· IPR2025-00748

ZF Active Safety files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Facet Technology’s ’255 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

patent instituted · Apr 4, 2025

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.

MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00827

MIM Software Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc.'s patent (11941817) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Renisch and Zhao.

patent instituted · Apr 4, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00743

Meta Platforms successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding its challenge to Mullen Industries' patent covering head-mounted displays and interactive systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness (103) based on combinations of prior art.

patent denied · Apr 4, 2025

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 4, 2025

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR petition against H2 Intellect LLC's location-based content delivery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, citing insufficient teaching or suggestion in the prior art.

ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.

· IPR2025-00749

Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).

patent all challenged claims upheld · Apr 4, 2025

ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.

· IPR2025-00748

Mobileye Global's challenge to Facet Technology Corp.'s road sign recognition patent failed before the PTAB, upholding claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9335255. The Board found insufficient evidence that combining prior art references would render the claimed method obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 4, 2025

Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Navanath Ambre

Gujarat High Court · 98166356

Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals challenging the trial court's refusal to grant various ex-parte reliefs, including an interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, and disclosure of sensitive information from former employees (the respondents). The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had divulged confidential company data, client lists, and manufacturing processes after resigning. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the trial court committed no procedural or jurisdictional error in denying these urgent ex-parte orders.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000823

Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al.

In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000822

Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.

Corning Incorporated filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim concerning EP 3 296 274 against defendants from three separate corporate groups (Hisense, TCL, and LG). The defendants filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal, arguing they were mere distributors of LCD-TVs with no direct connection to the glass manufacturer and that joining three independent competitor groups in one action constituted an artificial splitting of cases violating fair trial principles. The court rejected the preliminary objections, holding that the Local Division Mannheim had competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA for each defendant individually, that no obligation existed to sue OEMs and suppliers jointly, and that the defendants' fair trial arguments were unpersuasive.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000821

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000820

Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.

This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the IPR against MidAmerican before any merits decision.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp challenges the Director's discretionary denial of an IPR on MES’s ‘225 patent covering mercury control technologies, arguing the petitions are timely, there are no real parties in interest, and the PTAB is the proper forum.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity analysis under §315(b).

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and the patent owner jointly move to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

BirchTech Corp. and WEC Energy Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits decision has been rendered.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

Utility affiliates of Berkshire Hathaway Energy settled multiple PTAB IPRs, leading to the termination of the cases for the settling parties while the Board kept the proceedings open for the remaining petitioners.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

BirchTech seeks PTAB Director Review to block institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity standard.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.