IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 139 of 189 · 5,670 total
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA defends the institution of an IPR against Auto Telematics, arguing the patent owner waived procedural arguments and that the ’728 vehicle‑data‑logging patent is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Microsoft Corporation v.TS-Optics Corporation
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging TS‑Optics’ U.S. Patent 7,266,055 covering optical pickup actuators. The petition asserts that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references, including Choi, Ogata, Ikeda, Kamata, Santo, Kabasawa, Miura, and Sugiyama. Microsoft seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA petitions the PTAB to invalidate Auto Telematics’ vehicle‑behavior logging patent, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over a combination of existing telematics and accident‑detection references.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent covering driver behavior monitoring and accident detection technology. The Board found the claims were reasonably likely to be obvious over combinations of prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria GMBH successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Takeda Vaccines regarding a vaccine patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable over combinations of prior art, specifically citing evidence related to fetal protection and antibody transfer.
Psychotropic India Limited v.Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Psychotropic India Limited against Meridian Medicare Ltd. The court found that Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark 'TROMA' with malafide intent, capitalizing on the goodwill established by the petitioner in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the prior use and distinctiveness of the petitioner's marks (TROMANIL, TROMA), the court ruled that the registration held by the respondent was contrary to the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Umesh Chauhan
Levi Strauss And Company filed a suit against Umesh Chauhan and Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa alleging infringement of their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to clothing and jeans. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient positive evidence to corroborate the local commissioner's report, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft & Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal filed by ILME against an order of the Local Chamber Munich that rejected ILME's objection under R. 19 RoP. Phoenix Contact, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal, citing the complexity of arguments and workload. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension until April 7, 2025, emphasizing the principle of equality of arms and the need for an efficient resolution of the jurisdictional question.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition reply contends that Halozyme’s hyaluronidase enzyme patent fails the written‑description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The company argues the disclosed genus is too broad and impossible to enable without undue experimentation.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel seeks rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00794, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon chips a national‑security priority and that the denial misapprehended this.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over a GPU clustering patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, leading the Board to end the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00795, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon processors vital to national security. The petition contends the Director misapprehended the briefing and seeks referral to a merits panel.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00808 concerning patent 11,938,201. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without prejudice and allowing future filing.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,398,791 B1 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before the Board instituted the trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00807 after reaching a settlement, ending the Board proceeding without a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The Director denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00794, leaving the patent challenge uninstated.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,676,877 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,140,612 B2.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The USPTO denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and the denial of institution in IPR2025‑00795, leaving the original decision intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00682 and IPR2025-00683, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
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.