IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 118 of 189 · 5,670 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims are obvious over prior art referencing location-based games. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness for multiple claims across two patents.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for payment of costs (€92,814.62) filed by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV following a final decision in infringement proceedings regarding EP 2 331 036. The respondent had filed an appeal against the main decision, and the Judge-Rapporteur ordered the suspension of the costs procedure pending the outcome of the appeal, requiring the parties to inform the court once the Court of Appeal renders a decision on the merits or the dispute is otherwise terminated.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Others
This is an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, brought by Evac Oy against six defendants. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the claimant and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, while ordering that the proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain, VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) continue.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (Application No. APP_17389/2025, UPC_CFI_86/2025)
The Walt Disney group entities and BAMTech (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2465265 was granted. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. (the Claimant) opposed the request. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the Board’s decision not to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,619,578, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
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' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
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' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys’s Director Review request, arguing the referral decision was proper and the Fintiv factors favor institution. The Board is urged to reject the request, keeping the 3‑D‑printing patents intact.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate nine inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews covering multiple patents before any institution decision was made.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, citing strong settled expectations for Mobile Data Technologies’ 2018 wireless patent and the unreviewable nature of the Director’s discretion.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-00543 was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies has strong settled expectations, justifying discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,732,909 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation and procedural errors warrant discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,732,909. The parties cite a settlement agreement and PTAB good‑cause precedent to end the pre‑institution proceeding.
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.