IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 152 of 189 · 5,670 total
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, MWE and Champion have settled the IPR over a dual‑fuel engine patent, filing a joint request to keep the settlement confidential and to withdraw the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 documents the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs, and Cole Haan, concluding IPR2025-01394.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 contains the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, indicating the IPR has been resolved.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions for Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments, terminating their involvement in multiple IPRs against Champion Power’s generator patents, while Generac Power Systems remains as a petitioner.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible abstract ideas.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging ShopSee’s ’316 patent covering interactive video layers, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Ohliger and related references.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan’s 10,327,511 shoe patent, arguing that its ornamental knit‑upper features are obvious over Dua and several prior‑art references.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition challenging Cole Haan’s U.S. Patent 11,041,262 covering knitted shoe uppers. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dua, ’762, ’288, Flusser and Litke, and that ornamental features lack patentable weight.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan's 10,443,163 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1, which relates to a boost power factor correction (Boost-PFC) circuit. The court held that the accused LED driver embodiment did not infringe the patent because its capacitor did not satisfy the claimed decoupling element requirement, while also rejecting the defendants' validity attacks, including new arguments raised only at the oral hearing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review to overturn institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Samsung, finding no good cause and applying the Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs/PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court undermine its PTAB petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs filed by Samsung, leaving the institution orders in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to overturn the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of institution and termination of the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings filed by Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in a parallel district‑court case constitute good cause for reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review, upholding the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung after the Patent Owner failed to show good cause for extending the deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of Samsung's Wi‑Fi patents, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and requiring justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Court decision.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
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.