IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 119 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Union If India And Ors
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed against an order rejecting its patent application for "AIR CONDITIONING APPARATUS" due to a lack of inventive step. The court found that the rejection order was unreasoned, cryptic, and failed to apply independent mind to the prior art documents cited. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh hearing.
Vennootschap v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application, which was based on a lack of inventive steps. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanically passed and violated natural justice because new prior art (D-2) was introduced at the hearing stage without being mentioned in the initial examination report. The Court agreed, finding no reasons in the impugned order.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
This matter before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division involves Andreas Gutzeit challenging a patent-related issue against The Controller General of Patents. The appellant raised a pure question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given the complexity and legal nature of the dispute, the court granted a final adjournment to allow both parties time to file their Written Notes of Submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the review of the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees, but the presiding judge as rapporteur had granted only 40%, reasoning that the withdrawals occurred after the completion of the written procedure. Panasonic argued that the parties had not been informed of the completion of the written procedure before withdrawing. The panel confirmed the rapporteur's orders, maintaining the 40% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged a communication from respondent authorities that cancelled a scheduled hearing for its patent application, citing redundancy in cited prior art. The petitioner argued this cancellation was unjustifiable without following procedural mandates. The court found serious infractions of procedure and directed the matter to be reassigned and heard afresh.
M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills, directing The Registrar of Trademarks to permit the renewal of the trademark 'THENALEE.' Despite the mark having lapsed, the court relied on previous judgments stating that if a trademark is not removed from the register, the owner is entitled to seek renewal. However, the petitioner was put on strict terms, including paying costs and filing the application within 30 days, to prevent future negligence.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Shree Bhawani Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Shree Bhawani Agro Industries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of the trademark 'SHAKTIMAN' by the defendant on agricultural products like Rotavator Blades. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the urgency in protecting established brand rights.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This decision concerns the assessment of costs for first instance and appeal proceedings in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Munich. The applicants (Bruker Spatial Biology, Luxendo GmbH, and Bruker Nederland B.V.) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 against the respondents (10x Genomics, Inc. and NanoString Technologies Inc.) following the Court of Appeal's rejection of the respondents' application for interim measures. The court addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of cost assessment applications after summary proceedings, the nature of cost orders in interim measure proceedings, and the binding effect of the one-month deadline under Rule 151.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, the proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged patent infringement. The Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) refused the provisional measures by order of 5 September 2024. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this refusal, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated that provisional measures were necessary because proceedings on the merits could be awaited, and that the requested measures would change a market status quo established years before the patent's grant.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing held on February 21, 2025, including the valuation of the infringement claim and counterclaim, procedural questions regarding late submissions, and scheduling for further proceedings.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Court decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors resolved their co‑development dispute through a settlement agreement that releases all claims and dismisses the related district‑court case. The settlement effectively ends the IPR2025‑00636 proceeding.
Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.
Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.
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.