IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 123 of 189 · 5,670 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a confidentiality dispute in patent infringement proceedings before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications under rules 262A and 262.2 RoP to establish a confidentiality regime for certain documents. The court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUS entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents, with Ericsson requesting an 'external eyes only' regime while the defendants sought access for at least one natural person from each party. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a dispute over the admissibility of arguments regarding auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A in patent amendment proceedings. The defendants (Xiaomi entities) sought to have certain arguments from the plaintiff's reply disregarded as untimely. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that the plaintiff's reference to earlier explanations for combined auxiliary requests was sufficient under Rule 30.1(b) RoP, and that further deepening of arguments in the reply was permissible under Rule 32.3 RoP.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,912,081 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of GenghisComm’s ’386 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil‑537, Galda, Brüninghaus and Dowling.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple Inc. against Apex Beam Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Chen and 3GPP renders at least one claim obvious.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the solar cell technology. The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over Chang in view of Jin, or other combinations.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_237/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 430 921, in which Juul Labs International Inc. was the appellant and NJOY Netherlands B.V. was the respondent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the appeal is concluded. The remainder of the request, including blanket requests for unspecified or future documents, was dismissed.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (APL_322/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 504 991, citing its involvement in parallel EPO opposition proceedings against the same patent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically listed documents but dismissed the broader request for unspecified documents, imposing a condition that Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the UPC appeal is closed.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,979,128. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s uplink cancellation signaling patent.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
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.