IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 115 of 140 · 4,175 total
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude settled their IPRs over flash‑memory patents before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 relating to a Boost Power Factor Correction (Boost-PFC) circuit, with claims 7 to 10 at issue. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court rejected new attacks on the validity of the patent that were raised for the first time during the oral hearing, holding that strategic tactics aimed at surprise effects are foreign to the Rules of Procedure.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl v.The Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala seeking the rectification of a trademark registration held by another party. The court observed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for rectification before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition but directed the Registrar to expedite the consideration and passing of orders on the existing rectification application within six weeks.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
President and Fellows of Harvard College, 10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns three appeals filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against orders of the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings against Vizgen concerning EP 4108782. The Court of First Instance had partially granted Vizgen's three requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents. 10x filed appeals against those orders but subsequently applied for withdrawal of all three appeals, to which Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals and noted that no cost decision was necessary since both parties had waived cost claims.
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
Mukesh Chand Khandelwal Trading As M/S Khandelwal Brothers v.M/S S N Biri Factory Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal filed by Mukesh Chand Khandelwal. The court condoned an eight-day delay in refiling the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. The case challenges the Registrar's decision that dismissed the appellant's trademark application due to a successful opposition filed by the respondent.
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.