IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 140 · 4,175 total
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Telcom Ventures' 9,832,708 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Byrne, and White references.
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
The Board denied institution of the IPR, finding that Cruzr Saddles LLC failed to meet the particularity requirements when challenging Tethrd LLC's patent using online video evidence.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a video‑encoding patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that Google’s statutory arguments are unfounded.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Sri Tulasi Industries
The Telangana High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd against an order passed by the District Judge, Kamareddy. The petitioner argued that their application seeking a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit should not have been dismissed as infructuous while a higher court's stay was still pending. The High Court found the trial judge's dismissal erroneous and set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to reconsider the applications.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. v.Mr Rajesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. against the defendants regarding alleged infringement and passing off. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of deceptively similar marks ('Safe AQ'/'Safe Accu') and trade dress, as well as confusingly similar corporate names. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from selling or marketing products that mimic Sinocare’s intellectual property, and specific infringing URLs were directed to be disabled by e-commerce platforms.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Krs Multipro Private Limited. The suit involves allegations of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the popular brand 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Based on a prima facie case, the court found that the Defendants' product packaging copied the Plaintiff's registered mark precisely, posing a risk of market confusion. Consequently, the Defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of marks like 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' was likely to cause confusion with Mankind's well-known trademarks, including 'MANKIND' and its formative variants. Given the pharmaceutical nature of the products and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, the court restrained the defendant from selling or advertising the impugned marks until further hearing.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
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.