IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 128 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
Dwarka Matlani v.Jay Daryani
Dwarka Matlani filed a rectification petition challenging the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label and packaging titled 'ROYAL'. The petitioner argued that the registered artwork was a slavish imitation of their own established trademark/label, which they had used since 1997. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the registration process concealed material facts regarding the true ownership of the artistic work. The court found that the respondent's label was an imitation and lacked originality, making it ineligible for copyright protection. Given these findings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the removal of the impugned copyright from the Register.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
Mahle Gmbh v.Madan & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Mahle Gmbh to implead Mr. Ankur Jain (M/s A.J. Enterprises) as a defendant after local commissioner reports found counterfeit 'MAHLE' pistons at his premises. Consequently, the court extended the existing interim injunction order against this newly added party. This decision underscores the judiciary's willingness to ensure all parties involved in counterfeiting activities are brought before the court for proper adjudication.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities regarding European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants jointly requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025. The Presiding Judge granted the request based on the parties' agreement and the minimal extension period involved.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec, LLC seeks Director review to deny institution of an IPR against its 18‑year‑old anti‑sweat controller patent, arguing strong settled expectations and non‑material prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims and dismissing the related district court case, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Nielsen’s U.S. Patent 11,871,058 covering methods to determine media presentation duration from set‑top‑box tuning data. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar, and seeks institution of the IPR.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed a petition to cancel Number 14 B.V.’s 7,812,665 op‑amp offset‑calibration patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,973,596, arguing they are obvious over Pertijs and Tang prior art. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Apotex Inc. et al. v.Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
Apotex petitions the PTAB to review US 7,919,499, covering a long‑acting naltrexone formulation, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Comer, Nuwayser, Rubio and Wright. The petition cites a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for inter partes review of XtreamEdge’s U.S. Patent No. 10,944,634, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑management patents. The petition challenges all 20 claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that ControlTec's patent claims are obvious over prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR and a trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on analogous teachings in refrigeration equipment patents.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems in an IPR against XtreamEdge, finding they failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board specifically rejected arguments that prior art references taught the specific bandwidth determination limitations of the challenged claims.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding European Patent EP4070727. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of the proceedings, with no cost decision requested. The Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant, amounting to EUR 7,400, while setting the value of the cases at EUR 4,000,000.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_468/2023 Final decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/01/2025 concerning confirmation by the Court of a settlement APPLICANT C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn, The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Rep
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
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.