IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 113 of 140 · 4,175 total
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method to detect genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on flawed reasoning regarding Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed a procedural application seeking rejection of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action as manifestly inadmissible, arguing that Suinno's appointed representative was ineligible because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company. The Court considered a prior Court of Appeal order confirming that natural persons with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person cannot serve as its representative before the UPC. The Court held that the lack of valid representation does not lead to inadmissibility of the action, but rather requires granting the affected party an opportunity to remedy the representation deficit.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review on all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’291 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. All nine claims are now under review.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
The PTAB denied Innoscience's petition to institute IPR against Infineon's 9,899,481 B2 patent covering compound semiconductor power components, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 17 challenged claims.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The petition relied on anticipation and obviousness over Garrison and other references, but lacked sufficient particularity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 8,275,827, asserting that key claims are obvious over prior‑art storage systems (Carter, OceanStore, Gibson) and should be invalidated.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method related to detecting genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejections under Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) were flawed, citing lack of reasoning and procedural unfairness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201747006075). The rejection was primarily based on Section 3(i), arguing that the method for detecting tumor-derived cell-free DNA falls under diagnostic processes and is therefore not patentable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only to inventions that 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.R Y Easy Shop Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Play Games 24X7 Private Limited. The plaintiff informed the court that they had identified additional entities infringing their intellectual property rights and would seek impleadment of these parties. The court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 23, 2025, while continuing the existing interim order.
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.