IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art standards and publications.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc. et al.
NJOY has filed an IPR petition challenging JUUL’s U.S. Pat. 12,156,533 covering nicotine‑salt e‑cigarette formulations. The petition argues anticipation under §102 and obviousness under §103 based on the Sebastian and Lechuga‑Ballesteros references.
Kluster Llc & Anr. v.Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.
Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
Jyoti Sharma (Trading As Akhand Bharat Enterprises) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Jyoti Sharma's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register a device mark. The court found that the original refusal order contained significant factual errors, incorrectly characterizing the application as a word mark for services when it was actually a device mark for goods in Class-9. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, without prejudging the merits of the registration claim.
Easy Trip Planners Limited v.Inditab E Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the suit filed by Easy Trip Planners Limited against Inditab E Solutions Private Limited, which seeks permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set timelines for the filing of written statements and replication, scheduling the next hearing for the injunction application.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for lowering LDL cholesterol. The Court of First Instance (Munich central division) had revoked the patent, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision, finding that the claimed invention involves an inventive step and rejecting the respondents' requests to revoke the patent in its entirety.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, applied for an order of inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant suspected that SYPOX's electrically heated biogas-to-hydrogen plants (SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400) infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant the bailiff and expert unrestricted access to the allegedly infringing hydrogen production plants and related construction and operational documents.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis entities
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for therapeutic use. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's revocation decision, holding that the patent claims were valid. The court found that the invention involved an inventive step, as the skilled person starting from the prior art (Lagace) would not have developed antibodies targeting PCSK9 as a next step at the priority date, and ordered the respondents to pay Amgen's costs.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 and 27/2025), Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Appellant in 530/2024, 532/2024, 533/2024 and 27/2025 and Respondent in 464/2024, 457/2024, 458/2024 and 21/2025) v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research announced a partial settlement with Apple, licensing its patents and dropping all Apple‑related claims in the Texas district court case against Amazon defendants.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate key claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning robot patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier Chinese and U.S. robotic cleaning disclosures. The petition targets claims 1‑8, 11‑14, and 19 and seeks an IPR institution.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.
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.