IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 117 of 140 · 4,175 total
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha v.Mr. Devender Kumar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha against a rejection of its trademark application for 'R3' in Class 12. The court found that the original rejection failed to consider key arguments, including the appellant's claim that R3 was an associated mark and their existing portfolio of related marks (like YZF-R3). Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited v.Hector Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ds Drinks And Beverages Private Limited, upholding the interim injunction granted to Hector Beverages Private Limited. The court found that despite differences in surrounding words and product types (energy drink vs. juice), the core mark 'SWING' is predominant and highly similar. Given that both products are allied and sold across the same counter, the court ruled that there is a clear likelihood of customer confusion, favoring the established goodwill of Hector Beverages.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have settled their IPR dispute over a respiratory‑rate patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems' IPR petition against PayRange LLC was denied, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 7 and 11 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments combining prior art references (Low, Arora, Freeny, Casey) to establish obviousness.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved with NL Giken to terminate IPR2025-00407 over U.S. Patent 8,677,391 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and notes the institution decision is still pending.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and ASSIA have settled their dispute over a DSL‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority to end the proceeding before any merits are decided and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
Court decision.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit disclosure to federal agencies only.
RingConn, LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent (11769910). The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references, including Zeng and Zhou. This ruling advances a critical battery technology dispute into trial.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
International N&H Denmark ApS, Virdia Inc. v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
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.