IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 110 of 140 · 4,175 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Withrow Networks Inc., challenging nine claims related to Adaptive Bitrate Video Transmission. The Board instituted the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Carmel and Mattavelli.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition against Birchtech Corp.'s '370 patent, finding that PacifiCorp et al. met the standard for reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds. The Board also addressed and rejected arguments from Patent Owner regarding written description and enablement issues concerning bromide compounds.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR on PacifiCorp's claims against Birchtech Corp. regarding flue gas desulfurization technology, overcoming a time-bar defense raised by the Patent Owner. The Board found Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.
Neoculi Pty Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Neoculi Pty Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, Kolkata, which rejected its application for an antibacterial pharmaceutical composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, unpatentability under Section 3(e), and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Hand Held Products, Inc. against Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 819 062, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement, and the defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared all proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each side, while noting that no decision on party costs was requested.
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/03/2025 REQUERANTS Mul-T-Lock France 4 avenue d’Ouessant, Bât E 91140 - Villebon-Sur-Yvette - FR Représenté par Stanislas Roux-Vailla
ZENTIVA K.S., ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.Respondent
(ROP 313) 1) Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a direct impact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. 2) The expression 'made in support, in whole or in part, of a claim, order or relief sought by one of the parties' in Rule 313.2 RoP must be interpreted as meaning that the intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party who has been supported, and therefore in accor
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the PTAB's institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, including the 9,954,922 patent. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper under settled‑expectations and discretionary authority. The response urges the Director to reject Amazon’s review request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
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” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
M/S Crompton Greaves Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
In this rectification case, M/S Crompton Greaves Limited sought to rectify Trademark No. 1131780 used by a respondent. However, given that the respondent had simultaneously filed an application seeking cancellation of the same trademark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the High Court directed the Registrar to address the cancellation request directly. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of without further proceedings.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the judgment that rejected his appeal regarding Patent Application No.5606/CHENP/2012. The petitioner argued there were patent errors concerning Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically related to technical effect on hardware. However, the High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
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.