IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 111 of 189 · 5,670 total
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed a petition to invalidate 19 claims of Oak IP’s U.S. Patent No. 10,090,395, asserting that prior patents Grupp ’483 and Jammy anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims covering metal‑semiconductor interface layers.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Audio Pod’s ’907 patent covering synchronized audiobook files, arguing they are obvious over standards and prior publications such as the DTB SMIL specification and McCartney’s work.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
Rieter Ag And Anr. v.Kavassery Narayanaswamy Venkatesubramanian
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction over an infringement suit involving designs, trademarks, and patents. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite the defendant being based elsewhere, the cause of action arose in Delhi because goods were delivered to an address there following an order placed from Delhi. The court rejected the defense's claim that the transaction was merely a 'trap purchase,' affirming that the physical delivery of goods and invoicing in Delhi established the court's jurisdiction.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
94 Cedar Properties And Trading Llp & Ors v.Shri Munish Thakur & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings related to a previous settlement concerning the trademark 'DROTIN' and its variants. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was using the deceptively similar mark 'DROTINXT' in medicinal preparations, constituting contempt of court. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their returnable appearance.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought provisional measures against Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division in connection with the Connected Ball Technology used at UEFA EURO 2024. After the Local Division dismissed its application for lack of urgency and insufficient proof of infringement, and ordered Ballinno to provide security for costs, Ballinno appealed but withdrew its request for a provisional injunction because the tournament had already taken place. The Court of Appeal held the appeal on security for costs admissible and set out principles for costs allocation, indicating that a party who builds its case on a single event and withdraws after the event passes must generally bear the costs as the unsuccessful party.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR before the Board institutes trial, citing the early stage of the proceeding and prior Board practice of granting such terminations.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai references.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Unified Patent Court decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., and Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This procedural order concerns a panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's decision dismissing the Defendants' application to order the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4092759. The Hamburg Local Division rejected the Defendants' request for panel review, finding they had not presented concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost order in China would be unduly burdensome, while granting leave to appeal on the basis that questions regarding the scope and requirements of Rule 158 RoP security applications are of significance beyond the individual case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT seeks to invalidate Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent (U.S. 12,171,916) by arguing all 22 claims are obvious, lack written description, and are abstract calculations. The petition requests cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’682 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date.
Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of SnapAid’s ’325 patent on obviousness grounds, citing a broad set of prior‑art references covering real‑time image‑quality assessment.
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.