IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 120 of 140 · 4,175 total
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully moved forward in its IPR against ControlTec, LLC's patent (7421847), leading to institution on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding the prior art reference 'Carter' analogous to condensation control in refrigerated cases.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner on claim 1 based on prior art combination arguments. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction regarding target detection, maintaining ordinary and customary meaning. This sets up an active trial phase to determine patent validity in UAV/Flight Control technology.
Smart Call Centre Solution Private Limited v.Harinder Singh And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages against the defendant for alleged disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. The court granted leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and dispensed with the pre-mediation process due to grave urgency. Subsequently, an interim order was passed restraining the defendant from disclosing or utilizing confidential client data and trade secrets.
Creativeland Advertising Private Limited v.Winzo Games Private Limited
In a dispute concerning the use and registration of the tagline "Jeeto Har Dinzo," Creativeland Advertising sought interim protection against Winzo Games, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trademark infringement. Despite the petitioner's request for immediate injunctions, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court appointed Justice Manmohan Singh as the arbitrator and directed him to expedite the proceedings within five days due to the imminent advertising campaign timeline.
Adyar Gate Hotels Limited v.ITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Mr.Amit Agarwal / M/s.Seetu Orbit Cable India Pvt. Limited v.Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta / M/s.ADL Orbit Cable (India)
The Madras High Court addressed applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand ORBIT/ADL ORBIT. While upholding the interim injunction against the use of the registered trademarks, the court recognized the potential hardship caused by immediate cessation of the trading name. Consequently, it granted a 60-day grace period for the defendant to transition its branding, balancing public interest in preventing consumer confusion with commercial viability.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v.SES-imagotag SA
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns court fees for the appeal instance, an application for a default decision, and an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 883 277, where VusionGroup's application for interim measures against the Hanshow companies was rejected by the Local Division Munich, with VusionGroup ordered to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding the cost determination application and the admissibility of the appeal.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the breadth of the claimed genus and the impossibility of testing all variants.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies seeks to reinstate an inter partes review of its automotive sensor patent, arguing that the Board’s earlier institution was proper and that its narrow claim construction is supported by the specification.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies files a Director Review petition to vacate the institution of an IPR against Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and indefiniteness arguments violate the Director’s Tesla policy.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC requests Director Review to vacate the PTAB's institution of an IPR filed by Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner gave conflicting claim constructions in the Board and district court. The request cites recent Director decisions requiring explanation of such inconsistencies.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,060,590 covering thousands of engineered PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '590 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB found the claims were overly broad regarding polypeptide scope, requiring undue experimentation for a skilled artisan.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.
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.