IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 140 of 189 · 5,670 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC submits an authorized response urging the Director to deny Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,198,686. The response rebuts the petitioner’s arguments on national security, settled expectations, duplication, and examiner error.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00682, leaving the earlier decision intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and have the PTAB evaluate the validity of its ‘686 semiconductor patent, citing national‑security stakes and examiner errors. The request stresses long‑standing settled expectations and a lack of prior enforcement.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,104,185 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims are overly broad, lack written description and enablement, and are obvious in view of prior art. The case is pending institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 26‑29 and 35‑39 of U.S. Patent 10,333,768, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art papers (Menon, Trefethen) combined with IBM documentation and the MPI standard. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems’ ’768 patent covering cluster‑computing architectures, arguing that the invention was disclosed years earlier in Cornell’s MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
Tarakant Sangwani v.Apollo Pipes Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) had filed a subsidiary application under R. 191 Alt. 2 RoP against third party Cloudflare Inc. for transmission of information, and then sought a preliminary finding that the requested information was not decisive. The court held that such a preliminary finding request is inadmissible, but interpreted the plaintiffs' conditional withdrawal as making the R. 191 application itself conditional on the information being decisive, and stayed the decision on the information request and related applications.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00755 after resolving their dispute in district court, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,044,689 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The district‑court case involving the same patent was also dismissed.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in a Board‑ordered termination of IPR2025-00752 covering patent 10,044,689.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars and Dainese have executed a settlement that ends all pending cross‑border patent disputes over airbag technology for motorcyclists. The agreement includes dismissal of lawsuits, withdrawal of oppositions, and a mutual non‑challenge pledge.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00754 after settling their dispute, including dismissal of related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition challenging PACid’s ’530 patent on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Immega, Day, Tomko, Mardikar‑318, Chhabra and Duffy prior art. The petition argues for institution and cites Fintiv factors.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.
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.