IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 126 of 140 · 4,175 total
Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers v.Hari Om And Co. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers, against Hari Om And Co. The court cancelled Respondent No. 1's registered mark because the petitioner demonstrated prior and continuous use of the dominant feature 'ROHIT' since 2000, predating the respondent's claim of use in 2005. Given the identical nature of the marks (despite language differences) and the commonality of goods, the court found that allowing the registration would inevitably cause confusion among consumers.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the “settled expectations” standard is a lawful discretionary factor and that Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments fail.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Star India Pvt. Ltd., an entertainment media company, filed a suit against various individuals and entities for the unauthorized dissemination and broadcasting of its copyrighted content through rogue mobile applications and illicit websites. The plaintiffs asserted their exclusive rights over content streamed via STAR Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. Given that the defendants failed to contest the suit by filing a written statement despite being served, the Delhi High Court found them liable for copyright piracy.
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nikita Dubey Rai, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' and associated copyrights in the field of educational services. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'LEARNING EINSTEINS'. However, both parties amicably settled their dispute through a joint memorandum of compromise dated February 6, 2025.
V.T. Varghese v.Jose Jacob and The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by V.T. Varghese seeking rectification and removal of a registered trademark (No. 1334030). The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple scheduled dates despite being given opportunities.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich addressed a preliminary objection raised by Motorola Mobility LLC against a second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 filed by Ericsson. Motorola argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to lis pendens, as the validity of the same patent was already subject to prior proceedings between the same parties in the same court. The Judge-rapporteur allowed the preliminary objection, holding that Article 33(2) UPCA applies equally when the same parties bring duplicative actions on the same patent before the same division, and dismissed the second counterclaim as inadmissible without a separate costs decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court on 5 February 2025 in an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent n° 3669828. The order summons the parties to an oral hearing scheduled for 11 February 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Munich, and provides standard procedural information regarding review, public access, audio recording, and consequences of absence.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request under Rule 36 RoP filed by the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd, seeking further exchanges of written pleadings in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3155936 against NUC Electronics entities and Warmcook. Hurom sought a declaration that certain sections of its Rejoinder challenged by the Defendants were admissible, or alternatively, permission for both parties to submit further statements. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegedly new arguments were mere clarifications and that, as defendants in infringement proceedings, they should have the last word.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
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.