Patent Cases

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

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

Page 43 of 453

patent denied · Oct 4, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00836

The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review Request, asserting that the new RPI arguments are untimely and that the Director’s discretionary denial was proper.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple reached a settlement, prompting the Commission to dismiss the case without further review.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00834

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol and Credo have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol and Credo Technology Group settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple filed a joint motion to end the case based on a settlement. The Commission found no reason to deny the motion and declined to review the initial determination.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00834

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00836

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,816,249 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on three prior‑art patents (Burns, Yang, Guruswamy). The petition argues that the Board should institute trial and rejects any discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00837

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,106,824 patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art IDS patents (Burns, Yang, and Wittenberg). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Align’s 10,791,936 dental scanning patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability for the entire claim set.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00793

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’792 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues strong merits and seeks institution, while disputing any discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00790

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00785

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ load‑balancing patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 4, 2025

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent instituted · Oct 4, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating successfully moved its IPR against Align Technology's dental scanning patent to the trial phase. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution on all 20 claims.
patent denied · Oct 4, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00785

The PTAB denied institution for American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board specifically rejected the obviousness arguments concerning partitioning and descriptions limitations based on prior art references Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 3, 2025

Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Managing Directors v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000316

This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin companies to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy infringing wireless chargers, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings. The court also addressed key legal questions regarding the interpretation of 'offering' under Art. 25 EPGÜ, liability of managing directors for patent infringement, and the proportionality of corrective measures.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 3, 2025

Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Others v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000315

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. Philips, the patent holder, sued Belkin companies and their managing directors for offering wireless chargers on www.belkin.com that comply with the Qi standard's Extended Power Profile. The Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeals, ordering injunctive relief and corrective measures against the corporate defendants while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings, and declined to hold the individual managing directors personally liable.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 3, 2025

Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000314

Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 3, 2025

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited and Others

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000313

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated October 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997 relating to wireless inductive power transfer. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities (and their managing directors) for patent infringement regarding wireless chargers meeting the Qi Extended Power Profile standard, while Belkin filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy the infringing products, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings.
patent · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 9,208,423 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over prior art Doughty, Bursch, and Fox. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung's request for Director Review of institution denials in several IPRs was denied by the PTAB, leaving the original decisions unchanged.
patent · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00644

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of an IPR over iCashe's mobile‑payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, including the improper rescission of the Vidal Memo and failure to consider Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00643

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.
patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.
patent denied · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00642

The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
patent · Oct 3, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.

· IPR2025-00643

Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
1 •••424344•••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 →