IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 131 of 140 · 4,175 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group after the parties settled, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp. The settlement agreement is treated as business‑confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over a emissions‑control patent. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
M/s.Nico Quality Products v.M/s.N.C.Arya Snuff & Cigar Co.
This complex litigation before the Madras High Court revolves around the ownership and use of registered trademarks related to snuff and cigar products. M/s. Nico Quality Products sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement and passing-off by M/s. N.C. Arya Snuff & Cigar Co., while other parties challenged the validity of an assignment deed. The court addressed multiple suits concerning trademark rights, including declarations regarding the legality of assignments.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.
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.