Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 30 of 453

patent · Nov 7, 2025

SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC

· IPR2025-01231

ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 7, 2025

Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01184

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025

Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel

· IPR2025-01280

Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent denied · Nov 7, 2025

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01278

The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
patent denied · Nov 7, 2025

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01277

The USPTO Director denied institution for IPR2025-01277, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025

SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC

· IPR2025-01231

The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01188

Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01189

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01189, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Hannibal IP's patent, though the proceeding is currently stayed.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 6, 2025

Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000253

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 6, 2025

Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000252

The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 6, 2025

Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000251

Anordnung
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Nov 6, 2025

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

· IPR2025-01129

GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
patent · Nov 6, 2025

ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01143

ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 6, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-01137

Caihong has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning’s 8,627,684 patent covering a glass‑roll apparatus for flat‑panel displays. The petition relies on eight prior‑art references to argue obviousness of claims 1‑14.
patent denied · Nov 6, 2025

ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01143

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
patent denied · Nov 6, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-01137

The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
patent interim order · Nov 6, 2025

Rajat Sharma & Anr. v.Tamara Doc & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 195644973

The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.
patent mixed · Nov 6, 2025

M/s.Aston Packaging Solution v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry

Madras High Court · 32732471

M/s.Aston Packaging Solution approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against delays in its trademark opposition proceedings. The petitioner, who owns the 'ASTON' device trade mark application, noted that despite completing all pleadings and evidence in Opposition No.1011897, no hearing had been fixed by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court intervened, directing the Respondent to promptly consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking an early hearing within a specified timeframe.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 5, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000256

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 5, 2025

Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & Co. KG et al.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000255

This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, which protects a loft/attic staircase (Dachbodentreppe). Dolle A/S, the patent proprietor, sued four FAKRO group companies for infringement regarding the 'GREENSTEP LME Energy Efficient' and 'GREENSTEP LMT Super Thermo' products, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The court largely upheld the infringement claim, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, information, recall, destruction, and damages, with the defendants bearing 90% of the costs of the main action.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 5, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000254

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00990

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00990

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
1 •••293031•••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 →