IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 144 of 189 · 5,670 total
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l., Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Amazon's request to file an additional written submission in reply to Nokia's response to Amazon's appeal, filed just five days before the scheduled oral hearing. The court held that the written procedure before the Court of Appeal is limited to the appellant's grounds of appeal and the respondent's response, and granting Amazon a further written submission would violate the principle of equality of arms.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
MAGUIN SAS sought review (retraction) of an ex parte order granting TIRU's application for evidence preservation measures (seizure and site visit) based on TIRU's European patent EP 3 178 578 concerning waste incineration installations. MAGUIN argued lack of urgency, absence of risk of evidence destruction, and breach of TIRU's duty of loyalty by allegedly concealing prior art. The Local Division Paris rejected all three grounds and dismissed MAGUIN's request for retraction.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. Audio Pod’s counsel argues the denial was proper under the settled‑expectations doctrine and that no APA or due‑process violations exist. The Board has yet to rule on the review request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that barred its IPR petition on patent 9,319,720. The petition argues the rule violates the APA, the Constitution, and the AIA. The Board is asked to reverse the discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its adaptive streaming patent. The patent owner contends the Board misinterpreted claim language and improperly relied on prior‑art references that do not teach the required combination of fluidity, video quality, audio quality, and optimized decoding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Audio Pod defends the PTAB Acting Director’s use of a settled‑expectations standard to deny institution of Amazon’s IPR. The patent owner argues Amazon’s APA and due‑process challenges lack merit, urging denial of the Director Review request.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the Director erred in referring the petition and that the patent’s prosecution contained material misstatements. They seek denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, emphasizing PTAB efficiency over the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing that the existing MDL already handles the dispute efficiently. The petition highlights duplicative effort and potential abuse of discretion by the Board.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for IPL and WPL. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties under 35 U.S.C. §317.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing that the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide its validity and seeking denial of the patent owner's Director Review request.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review proceeding as to MidAmerican.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules, limiting its disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00775, leaving Withrow Networks’ patent 10,771,849 B2 instituted.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
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.