IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 103 of 140 · 4,175 total
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies LLC's patent (8230101), challenging claims 7-12 based on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The Board found that the Petition met the reasonable likelihood standard, particularly regarding how Lamkin discloses key limitations related to content location and tree structure.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s cybersecurity patent (12001549) because the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., maintained inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal forums.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR on all 29 claims of Wiz, Inc.'s patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that a combination of Ross, Agarwal, and Biran teaches every limitation of Claim 1, establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Orca failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, specifically regarding the required 'list of abnormal connections' feature.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Fingon LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Respondent
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by an Irish court, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the action against Digital River. The Court allowed the partial withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, directed Ericsson to file an amended Statement of Claim within 10 days, and granted AsusTek two months to file its Statement of Defence from service of the amended pleading.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
H2 Intellect LLC urges the PTAB Director to deny Home Depot’s request for review of the Board’s institution decision, arguing that the Board correctly found the prior art did not disclose key claim limitations and that Home Depot raised new arguments not in its original petition.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 9,779,418 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
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
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.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
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.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
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.
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
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.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
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.
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).
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Navanath Ambre
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.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. v.Promosome LLC
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.
Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 April 2025 Preliminary Objections: 8315/2025 8851/2025 10368/2025 8312/2025 8203/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
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.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
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.
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 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.
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.