Patent Cases

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

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

Page 82 of 453

patent · Jul 14, 2025

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01273

Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827, which covers location‑based virtual gameplay. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over the Kolo and Zyda references under 35 U.S.C. §103 and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent · Jul 14, 2025

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.
patent · Jul 14, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00997

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent instituted · Jul 14, 2025

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01276

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for patent 12070691 (ImagineAR), finding that Niantic failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01275

The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2025-01275, finding that Niantic failed to meet the non-discretionary standard required for proceeding.
patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01274

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01274 after finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were more likely than not unpatentable.
patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01273

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01273 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 2025

Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu

Supreme Court of India · 21607349

Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 12, 2025

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000561

The provided judgment text contains only the digital signatures of the presiding judges and the date of signing (July 12, 2025), with no substantive content regarding the facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome of the case.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 12, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000560

The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 11, 2025

Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000562

Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung and its Micron affiliates successfully challenged Netlist's 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent. The PTAB found all 34 claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the patent unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent were obvious over Harris and JEDEC FBDIMM standards, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’215 memory‑module patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all 29 claims unpatentable as obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and related references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in a PGR, resulting in all 20 claims being held unpatentable for obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR institution after the ITC found the challenged claims valid and commercially successful, resulting in a stay of the IPR pending further opinion.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the Netlist ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory claims are obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection, rendering all 30 claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.
patent · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that panels will now decide all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for PGRs and IPRs without an oral hearing, aiming for more efficient resolutions.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2026-00001

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs involving Netlist patents, leaving the PTAB’s rulings in place.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00018

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 patent are obvious over prior art combining Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, and therefore unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
1 •••818283•••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 →