IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 141 of 189 · 5,670 total
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Mullen Industries’ AR video‑game patent, asserting obviousness over earlier AR references. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
The PTAB denied Alpinestars' request for rehearing regarding the institution decision in IPR2025-00750 against Dainese. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs
The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
Heritage Foods (India) Limited v.Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'HERITAGE' registered by Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., citing prior use by Heritage Foods (India) Limited. Despite the petitioner demonstrating substantial sales turnover and long-standing use, the court found evidence supporting the first respondent's honest and bona fide adoption of the mark for edible oils since 1994. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court imposed a crucial condition: the registration remains valid only for edible oils.
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (Application under Rule 262 RoP in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH)
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure for access to court file documents in a patent infringement case (EP 2 568 724) between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE. The applicant law firm AMPERSAND sought access to all pleadings and evidence, citing general and scientific information interests. The court granted limited access, ordering the plaintiff to provide redacted versions of specified documents on an encrypted data carrier or data room, while rejecting the broader request.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. and an unnamed specialist dealer at the IDS 2025 trade fair in Cologne. The applicant alleged that the respondents' 'DLyte' Compact Series machines (DLyte 1D, DLyte 10D, DLyte 100D) infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application in part, ordering an inspection of the DLyte 1D and DLyte 100D machines at the trade fair stand by an expert and court bailiff, subject to detailed procedural conditions, while rejecting certain additional requests.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Former Patent Proprietors (EP 3 170 639)
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 at the Central Division Paris. The former patent proprietors immediately acknowledged the revocation and surrendered the patent ex tunc. The Court of First Instance ordered Stäubli to bear the costs, finding that Stäubli introduced new prior art for the first time in the revocation action without prior warning. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stäubli's appeal, confirming that Stäubli must bear the costs of both the first instance and appeal proceedings.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Kavo Dental Technologies (as represented by Dentsply Sirona) would prevail on at least one claim.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a post‑institution response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the Kelly reference fails to disclose claim limitations and that Walker is not prior art because the inventors conceived and diligently reduced the invention before Walker’s filing date.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00753 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00751 concerning patent 9,876,771 after resolving related district‑court litigation.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings. The joint motion and stipulation with prejudice ended the challenge to patent 10,171,433.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their patent dispute, leading to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
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.