IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 107 of 140 · 4,175 total
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
Tarakant Sangwani v.Apollo Pipes Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare. Inc.
This order concerns a side proceeding in which the plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) sought information from a third party, Cloudflare Inc., under Rule 191 Alt. 2 of the Rules of Procedure in connection with the main infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The rapporteur addressed the plaintiffs' request that he determine that the sought information is not decisive for the decision, combined with a conditional withdrawal of the information request. The court held that such a request for a preliminary determination is inadmissible, but that the conditional withdrawal is to be interpreted as making the information request itself conditional on the information being decisive, and that such an internal procedural condition is permissible even when the information is sought from a non-party.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,044,689 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The district‑court case involving the same patent was also dismissed.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars and Dainese have executed a settlement that ends all pending cross‑border patent disputes over airbag technology for motorcyclists. The agreement includes dismissal of lawsuits, withdrawal of oppositions, and a mutual non‑challenge pledge.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
The PTAB denied Alpinestars' request for rehearing regarding the institution decision in IPR2025-00750 against Dainese. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs
The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
Heritage Foods (India) Limited v.Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'HERITAGE' registered by Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., citing prior use by Heritage Foods (India) Limited. Despite the petitioner demonstrating substantial sales turnover and long-standing use, the court found evidence supporting the first respondent's honest and bona fide adoption of the mark for edible oils since 1994. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court imposed a crucial condition: the registration remains valid only for edible oils.
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB v.Respondent
This order concerns an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure by the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB seeking access to all written submissions and evidence filed in a completed patent infringement case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE concerning EP 2 568 724. The applicant cited a general information interest and a specific scientific interest, as one of its lawyers was working on a commentary on the Unitary Patent system. Panasonic opposed the request as too indefinite and disproportionate, while the defendants did not file observations. The court began its reasoning by applying the guidelines developed by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_404/2023, weighing the effort required for access against the applicant's interests in this particularly complex and voluminous case.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on March 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, relating to a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sole proprietor of the patent, had filed an application on March 25, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of the respondents at the Cologne trade fair (Köln Messe). The respondents include STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L., a manufacturer of machines for drag finishing and electropolishing, and a second respondent described as a specialist dealer and customer of the first respondent.
STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.Respondents
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a post‑institution response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the Kelly reference fails to disclose claim limitations and that Walker is not prior art because the inventors conceived and diligently reduced the invention before Walker’s filing date.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
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.