IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 130 of 189 · 5,670 total
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and public health. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied AMD's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00863, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,877 B2. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the inter partes review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and ACS settled their GPU patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 52 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑advertising patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites §§102(b/e) and prior claim constructions to support unpatentability.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD seeks to invalidate 30 claims of its competitor’s ’768 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier cluster‑computing publications and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 image‑sensor patent. The petition alleges that all 25 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references, presenting 15 distinct obviousness grounds. Institution of the IPR is requested.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Controller Of Patents
Vifor (International) Ag appealed an order by the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used to treat iron deficiency. The appellant argued that the rejection based on lack of novelty and inventive step was flawed, as the prior art cited was irrelevant and the Controller ignored technical data provided.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam Singla v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant No. 2) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the UPC Milan Local Division, particularly with respect to alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including over alleged infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC's request for review of the office's refusal to institute five IPRs against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director‑review of an inter‑ partes review was denied, leaving Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s semiconductor process patent intact. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial based on lack of persuasive justification and potential duplication with district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial, arguing that national‑security, settled expectations, and examiner errors justify instituting an IPR against patent 7,923,764.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision denying institution of multiple IPRs covering semiconductor process patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 lists PTAB outcomes for TSMC-related IPRs, including the 2025 IPR2025-00828 concerning patent 7,579,227.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
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.