IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 106 of 189 · 5,670 total
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action relating to EP 2 746 957. The Claimant sought review under R. 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's order dismissing its request to file a further written pleading under R. 12.5 and R. 36 RoP. The panel dismissed the application for review, confirming the judge-rapporteur's order on the grounds that the Claimant's request lacked sufficient substantiation and that the vague points raised did not justify allowing additional written submissions.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The PTAB denied Empower Clinic Services' request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025‑01024, which challenges Eli Lilly's patent 9,474,780. The institution remains denied, ending the challenge.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of its discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00975 and related cases. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the challenges.
Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Corning's 9,512,025 patent covering a glass‑ribbon heating cartridge for LCD displays, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Klein Tools petitions PTAB to invalidate Milwaukee’s 11,952,167 toolbox patent, asserting that its 16 claims are obvious over decades‑old container designs. The petition lists eight grounds of obviousness, each combining Burchia, Metabowerke and other prior art references.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
Treasure Garden petitions the PTAB to invalidate all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art umbrellas and proposing claim constructions.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
Treasure Garden has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, alleging anticipation by Wang ’109/’439 and obviousness over Glatz ’980 and related references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ 9,832,708 patent covering dual‑air‑interface smartphones and NFC‑based payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua references.
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Knaus Tabbert AG's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a first-instance decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The first-instance court had found that Knaus Tabbert infringed European Patent EP 3 356 109 (relating to a vehicle frame with foam resin structural parts) and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and provisional damages. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's requests, holding that ordering security for enforcement is discretionary and that facts requiring such security must be raised at first instance.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., and Siemens Healthcare SAS
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH filed a revocation action against Ballinno B.V. seeking to revoke European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1, which relates to a 'Method and system for detecting an offside situation.' The patent was owned by Ballinno and was in force in Germany and the Netherlands. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) revoked the patent with effect for Germany and the Netherlands, ordered Ballinno to bear the costs, and set the value of the proceedings at up to EUR 1,000,000.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’488 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN technologies. The petition lists multiple grounds under §103 and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court granted the request of Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order classifies certain information contained in unredacted versions of specific annexes as confidential and restricts access to a limited number of named persons on the plaintiffs' side.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung responded to the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board correctly found no inconsistency in claim positions, that construction was unnecessary, and that expert testimony was explanatory. The Director’s denial of discretionary review under § 325(d) is upheld.
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.