IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 120 of 189 · 5,670 total
AGFA NV v.Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and Others
AGFA NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 relating to a method for decorating natural leather using an achromatic base coat and inkjet-printed colour image, sued nine Gucci entities for infringement concerning the 'Pikarar Collection.' The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with costs split 40% to the Claimant and 60% to the Defendants.
The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2449782 was granted. InterDigital opposed the request, arguing no significant disadvantage had been shown. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung argues that the prior‑art Lee and Choudhury teach the same BSS‑color disabling features claimed in the ’163 patent, and urges the PTAB to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review of the institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR on patent 8,456,365. The petition argues the Director’s ‘settled expectations’ analysis is unlawful, arbitrary, and exceeds statutory authority.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, arguing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority. The petition highlights conflicts with the Celgene precedent and procedural violations under the APA.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO Director denied Geotab's request for rehearing after a discretionary denial and a denial of institution in IPR2025-00928.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung contests the patent owner’s arguments that the Lee and Choudhury references do not teach the claimed BSS‑color disabling features. The petitioner seeks denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, keeping the IPR instituted.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s request to delay IPR institution by invoking recent Director Review rulings was denied. Wilus sought a short deadline extension to submit new evidence, while Samsung wanted a longer pause pending district‑court claim constructions. The PTAB emphasized statutory timing limits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied a Director Review request, leaving the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz's bone‑conduction headphone patent instituted.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
The USPTO denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in four IPRs, leaving the original denial in place.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based neural‑network patent, arguing the Board ignored key timing and patent‑age evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
The USPTO denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a Director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00609, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’597 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of Lee, Stacey, Zhou, and Choudhury. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on FRACTUS’s 8,810,458 patent covering antenna placement in portable devices, asserting that the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues both §103 obviousness and §102 prior‑art grounds and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’844 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Shenzhen Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 10,080,250, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations involving domain‑based security and virtualization. The petition requests institution and a finding of unpatentability.
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.