IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 132 of 189 · 5,670 total
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
The plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, sought severance of its patent infringement action against the fifth defendant (Flextronics International Europe B.V.) from the proceedings against the other four defendants under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich rejected the severance request, finding that joint proceedings served procedural economy because the cases concerned the same allegedly infringing embodiment and overlapping infringement questions, and that any delays were attributable to the plaintiff's own error in initially suing a non-existent party.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's petitions for review of institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC seeks a Director Review to vacate the institution of an IPR concerning Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent. The request hinges on a revised Fintiv analysis, alleged re‑hash of prior art under §325(d), and failure to name all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in a Director Review proceeding, arguing the patent owner’s request raises new RPI arguments and evidence that are barred. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR over Align Technology’s orthodontic aligner patent, arguing changed Fintiv factors, improper obvious‑to‑try reasoning, and undisclosed foreign parties.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI claim and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Board’s institution decision was correct. The petitioner seeks denial of the Director Review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google argues against the patent owner’s request to revoke institution, emphasizing that the patent’s expiration and a district‑court stay do not justify discretionary denial, and urges the case to proceed.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed all claims of Align Technology’s ‘630 patent after finding ClearCorrect’s obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claim was deemed unpatentable.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect files an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Porter prior art issue was already rejected.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution outcomes intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a multilayer dental sheet composition, finding none of the ClearCorrect‑challenged claims unpatentable.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn an IPR institution on Align Technology’s Invisalign patent, arguing the Fintiv analysis now favors denial and that the petitioner failed to name all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed all claims of Align Technology’s ‘630 patent after finding ClearCorrect’s obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were deemed unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00806, leaving the Sandpiper CDN patent institution intact.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB discretionary denial that allowed review of its expired CDN patent. The petition argues the decision conflicts with settled‑expectations precedent and improperly weighed Fintiv factors. Google seeks reversal and denial of institution.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
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.