IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 136 of 140 · 4,175 total
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to invalidate Seikagaku Corporation's patent claims related to endotoxin detection. The Board found grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 112, specifically citing anticipation by a prior publication.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s lithium-ion battery patent (11,923,498). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Krbl Limited v.Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The case concerned issues of direct and indirect patent infringement, novelty, inventive step, and remedies including destruction, recall, and removal from distribution channels, as well as publication of the decision.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on November 26, 2024 and issued its decision on January 14, 2025. The judgment establishes key principles regarding direct and indirect patent infringement, destruction of infringing goods, recall and removal from distribution channels, and permission to publish the decision.
Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U. v.Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Respondent
Bentley Motors Limited, as claimant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 against Network Systems Technologies LLC, applied to withdraw the action. The respondent was given an opportunity to comment and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. The Court permitted the withdrawal under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision entered on the register, with no cost decision issued as neither party sought one.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
UPC Decision UPC-001039 v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an application for provisional measures against three Netgear entities concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321 before the Local Division Munich. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for interim measures. The single judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the dispute value at EUR 3 million, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This Revised Order concerns procedural matters in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The dispute centers on Claimant 2 (Harvard College)'s filing of 55 auxiliary requests in its application to amend the patent at issue, with parallel opposition proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (EPO). The Defendants sought to limit the number of auxiliary requests and adjust procedural deadlines, while the judge-rapporteur had previously ordered a stay of proceedings and a reduction of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number. The Revised Order addresses Claimant 2's subsequent application regarding the implementation of these prior orders.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
UPC Decision UPC-001036 v.Respondent
The applicant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, sought interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 before the Local Division Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on December 9, 2024, which had not yet been served on the respondent, the applicant withdrew its application for interim measures on January 3, 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, holding that the prior ex parte order did not constitute a final decision ending the instance because the review period under Rule 212.3 RoP had not yet begun.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
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.