IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 14 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' 7,936,736 B2 patent, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, leading the PTAB to deem all eight claims unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of a patent covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that five claims of the ’592 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange were obvious over Perttila and Insolia, rendering them unpatentable, while four other claims were upheld.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, asserting obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google files an IPR petition against Secure Communication’s ’359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious in view of Swartz. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, relying on Eagle and Mgrdechian prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the Eagle reference anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions to invalidate 22 claims of the ’359 patent, arguing that the invention is anticipated by Perttila and obvious when combined with Insolia. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and a finding of unpatentability.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 62 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth‑beacon patent, asserting that each claim is anticipated or obvious over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen, Kallio and Jones. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and collateral estoppel to bolster its request for institution.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Google LLC's IPR against Secure Communication Technologies regarding patent 11995685. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Calcutta High Court for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'JAY'S,' registered by Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-established brand, 'LAY'S.' Given the similarity in goods (snack foods) and the petitioner's immense goodwill, the court ruled that the registration of 'JAY'S' violated the Trademarks Act and must be cancelled.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’922 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art location‑service references.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Avant's ’032 patent covering location‑based presence services. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’910 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The challenger relies on prior art in the form of Kraufvelin, Hashimoto, Huomo and Andersson to argue obviousness under §103.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’621 patent covering mobile‑presence monitoring, arguing that all 18 claims are obvious over prior art such as Putkiranta, Kraufvelin, Granberg, and Rachabathuni.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant Location Technologies' ’030 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all claims.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’040 patent covering mobile‑station presence monitoring, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The request hinges on alleged inconsistent claim‑construction positions and procedural violations.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.
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.