IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 146 of 189 · 5,670 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision denying institution of multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP's patents. The order confirms the institution denial remains in effect.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director emailed the parties confirming receipt of petitioner’s Director Review requests for six IPRs, including IPR2025-00769. Patent Owner may file a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence 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” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’922 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
M/S Crompton Greaves Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
In this rectification case, M/S Crompton Greaves Limited sought to rectify Trademark No. 1131780 used by a respondent. However, given that the respondent had simultaneously filed an application seeking cancellation of the same trademark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the High Court directed the Registrar to address the cancellation request directly. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of without further proceedings.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action. The court corrected a typo in the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025, specifying the details of the oral hearing venue and time.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the Omni-Pac defendants. The judge-rapporteur was instructed to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The Director denied Amazon's request to review the PTAB's denial to institute multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year ‘settled expectations’ rule to its IPR petition against Audio Pod’s patent. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that assignor estoppel does not apply and that there is no statutory right to institution.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the statute grants no right to institution and that the Director acted within discretionary authority.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Court decision.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the rejection of his earlier appeal, which had been rejected on both maintainability grounds (Section 117A) and merits. The petitioner argued that patent errors existed in the interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically concerning technical effect and best mode. The Madras High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
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.