IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 121 of 189 · 5,670 total
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of a reissued patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including its own Nickolls GPU patent, an ANN conference paper, the Tamura Japanese patent, and the GPU Gems book.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA, LLC successfully petitioned against Smart Denture Conversions, LLC's patent, leading to institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others
The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)
The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in responding to ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC and Others
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and European automotive dealers/distributors, based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. Following a settlement reached between the parties, ArcelorMittal applied on 7 April 2025 to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (6,600 euros out of 11,000 euros paid).
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) issued a cost decision following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. The applicant, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, sought reimbursement of costs from the respondents, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally within three weeks.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 12,021,679 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,139,944 covering downlink control information. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Court decision.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have settled with Advanced Cluster Systems and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, keeping it separate from the public patent file.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD filed a joint motion to keep their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,570,034, leaving Intel as the remaining petitioner.
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.