IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 151 of 189 · 5,670 total
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 8,478,903 patent covering content‑delivery networks, asserting that the claims are obvious over Kenner and other prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules. The petition relies on anticipation by the Mizue patent and obviousness via Li and Liu utility models. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Zophonos’s ’906 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of DiCenso641, Smith, Holland, Warren, and Goldstein873.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Zophonos’ ’736 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, (Govt. Of India)
In this writ petition, Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya sought judicial intervention to expedite the pending registration of his trademark 'LAKHOTIA DURGA' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that previous opposition had been resolved through a compromise and there was no longer any impediment to registration. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the prayer, issuing a mandamus-like direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.
Ambika Ramesh v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
Ambika Ramesh filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding her registered Ayurvedic product trademarks. Despite inadvertently missing the renewal deadline, she submitted a detailed representation outlining her grievances. The Kerala High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within 60 days, ensuring due process.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude settled their IPRs over flash‑memory patents before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the 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.