IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 123 of 140 · 4,175 total
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner offers no statutory grounds, misstates parallel litigation, and has waived procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 9‑12 of Maxeon’s 8,222,516 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB rulings.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
Parle Elizabeth Tools Private Limited v.Pacific Tools Private Limited
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation of patent number 420765, which was granted in favour of respondent no.1. The court allowed an application for exemption from filing copies and listed the main petition for further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Shabina Kundial & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited successfully petitioned for the rectification and removal of a deceptively similar trade mark registered by Shabina Kundial & Anr. The petitioner, which operates under the renowned FACES brand in beauty and wellness, demonstrated extensive prior use, goodwill, and reputation associated with its marks. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established FACES marks and was adopted dishonestly to ride over the petitioner's reputation, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v.Askhok Kumar & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order concerning trademark infringement, the court granted an exemption from advanced service to allow the plaintiffs (Panasonic) to seek urgent interim relief. The core decision was the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises. This action aims to confiscate counterfeit packaging materials bearing the 'ANCHOR' trademark, thereby protecting Panasonic's goodwill and preventing further infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of the ’626 LED patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Shimadzu Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Shimadzu Corporation appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647043103), which concerned a surrogate biomarker for evaluating amyloid beta peptide accumulation. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it related to diagnostic methods. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, finding that the appellants were prejudiced by not having access to a key judgment before the initial hearing.
The Trustees Of Columbia University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its amended patent claims (1-19) for 'METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF AMYLOID DEPOSITION DISEASES' under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the amendments were supported by the complete specification, citing relevant case law. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.
Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd v.P.Sundaram
The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.
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.