IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 115 of 189 · 5,670 total
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners seek an IPR of Omni MedSci’s ’455 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art and that earlier IPR findings estop re‑litigation. They request the Board institute the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 11,126,025 patent covering in‑cell LCD touch panels, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Kim, Kim II and Yoshida.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s U.S. Patent 12,193,790, asserting that claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski and Carlson references and should be barred by collateral estoppel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, asserting that the dependent claims are obvious over prior art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Tam. They seek institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under §103.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent, which covers adaptive NFC‑based payment functions. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over a combination of prior‑art patents and the ISO‑14443 standard.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,674,432, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art NFC and biometric references. The petition lists eight grounds covering the full claim set.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 11,770,756, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103 and seeks full cancellation of the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’708 patent, arguing they are obvious over Carlson, ISO‑14443, Jazayeri and Birch references.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Telcom Ventures’ ’411 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art NFC payment systems combined with biometric authentication. Two grounds are presented, differing on the interpretation of “physiological data.”
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s U.S. Pat. 9,055,868, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical diagnostic systems.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent. They argue the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and that collateral estoppel bars re‑litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,937,172, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments and biometric authentication.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,219,199, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01356) was granted after a merits review, confirming the petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 12268475 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01253 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01252, allowing the challenger to proceed with the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01251, allowing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. to challenge OMNI MEDSCI, INC.'s patent 10874304.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 9651533 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The Board denied institution in IPR2025-01238 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
The Regents of the University of California & Others v.Union of India & Others
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Opposition Board regarding an interlocutory application related to their granted patent. The dispute centered on procedural infirmities in the post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence filed by the respondent. The court held that since the matter was still pending before the Hearing Officer and no final decision had been reached, the writ petition was premature.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
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.