IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 109 of 140 · 4,175 total
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Milestone Entertainment’s 10,650,635 patent covering virtual‑currency mechanisms in games, arguing obviousness over prior‑art patents Schneier143 and Okita.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent (8585476). The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Activision Blizzard's IPR against Milestone Entertainment regarding a gaming patent. The challenger successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art related to virtual currency and in-game economies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to challenge Mullen Industries' patent in an IPR proceeding concerning location-based gaming technology. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, leading to the institution of the review.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.Union of India
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited challenged the granting of Indian Patent No. 439474, which was issued despite a rejected pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. The core dispute centered on whether the Controller had adequately reasoned and considered the material evidence presented by both parties regarding novelty and inventive step. Although the court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as an appeal in disguise, it ultimately allowed the petitioner to file a post-grant opposition.
Robert Bosch Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201944047460), which was initially rejected by the Deputy Controller of Patents on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(m) because it was a method claim. The High Court set aside the rejection based on the finding that the claimed process is an inventive process, not merely a theoretical or mental act, and remanded the matter for re-examination on non-Section 3(m) grounds.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 7133/CHENP/2009) on the grounds that the invention was a non-patentable 'business method' under Section 3(k). The High Court examined the claim and held that since the invention involves using software to improve system functionality for verification, it is not merely a business method. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-consideration.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc and The Hershey Company v.Dukes Consumer Care Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company successfully petitioned the Madras High Court for the rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark 'TWO MUCH'. The petitioners argued that the respondent's mark had not been used continuously for five years from its date of registration. Given the lack of evidence of use by Dukes Consumer Care Limited, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar to remove the impugned entry from the register.
M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh
In this appeal before the Madras High Court, M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss an opposition based on the finding that 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' were different marks. The court noted evidence of prior use by Goldmedal's predecessor since 1987, and crucially, referenced a separate Civil Court decree confirming the deceptive similarity between the two trademarks. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the Registry's finding of difference would not be binding on the appellant in future proceedings related to these marks.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) VALINEA ENERGIE rue du Champ du Cerf
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, in which Amazon raised a FRAND competition law defense based on a compulsory license. The dispute at the appellate stage centered on the production of license agreements, with the Local Division Munich having ordered Nokia to produce certain agreements while rejecting Amazon's request for additional agreements and royalty statements. The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing Amazon's request for leave to file a further reply to Nokia's appeal response.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) MAGUIN SAS 2, rue Pierre Semard 0280
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
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.