IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 101 of 140 · 4,175 total
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V., Memodo GmbH, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the continuation of the written procedure in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 108 782. The claimants (10x Genomics and Harvard) had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4 in a revised application to amend the patent submitted on 9 April 2025. The panel held that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, and ordered continuation of the written procedure given the proceedings had already lasted nearly two years and an oral hearing date had already been agreed.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_597/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/04/2025 APPLICANT EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Applicant) - 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216, Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu - 13595
Ericsson GmbH, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor SASU v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned two orders of the Helsinki Local Division in an infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI entities (formerly Supponor entities). The appellants challenged orders relating to the amendment of a claim under Rule 263 RoP and the addition of a defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion under both rules, limiting appellate review, and clarified the procedural requirements for applications under these provisions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Takeda Pharmaceutical appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for Novel Protein Kinase Inhibitors (Brigatinib). The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to consider crucial supplementary data demonstrating Brigatinib's superior selectivity and therapeutic efficacy.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_698/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 10/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) ALIUD PHARMA GmbH (Applicant) - Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 19 - 89150 - Laichingen - DE Represented b
Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
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., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschlan v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Advanced Electric Machines Group Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
This appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning an improved electrical sub-assembly for electric/hybrid vehicles, which aimed to enhance Switched Reluctance Machines (SRMs). The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the invention. The court found significant procedural flaws in the respondent's decision, including failure to issue a proper Second Examination Report and citing foreign documents without translation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.