IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 108 of 140 · 4,175 total
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned to challenge Milestone Entertainment's patent on grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Walker and Kelly. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable. This sets up a trial proceeding focused on gaming parameter modification systems.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. v.Max Healthcare Institute Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply in an IPR challenging Activision Blizzard’s claim that claim 8 of U.S. Patent 10,825,294 is unpatentable. The patent owner asserts the petitioner’s evidence fails to show a variable multiplier for virtual currency over time and that new arguments are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency gaming patent was rejected. The patent owner showed the prior art fails to disclose key claim elements and that no motivation to combine existed.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that claim 9 is anticipated or obvious, emphasizing that the cited Schneier reference does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier for virtual currency.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The patent owner argues that the petitioner’s two grounds, based on Schneier143 (alone and with Okita), do not disclose the variable‑over‑time multiplier of Claim 9. Accordingly, Milestone seeks a finding that Claim 9 is not unpatentable.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' VR gaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed a petition for inter partes review of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent No. 10,825,294, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior art relating to virtual currency in games. The petition relies on Schneier143 and Okita references and seeks institution of the review.
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.