IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 153 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,849,337 covering a multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi system. The challenger asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’933 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of three prior‑art references covering multi‑RAT Wi‑Fi systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ Wi‑Fi bandwidth‑aggregation patent, asserting that a combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’976 patent, asserting that the combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,856,414. The challenger argues that the patent’s claims are obvious in view of earlier Wi‑Fi technologies disclosed in Chincholi, Riggert, and Choi. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks' 11,818,591 patent covering multi‑transceiver wireless networking devices, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01209 after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01208 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review of related cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01207 after the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard, but all related proceedings are currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01206 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. However, all related proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01205, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay pending related Director Reviews.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11849337, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with its challenge, though the trial is currently stayed.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01169), allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial against the challenged patent.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl v.The Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala seeking the rectification of a trademark registration held by another party. The court observed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for rectification before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition but directed the Registrar to expedite the consideration and passing of orders on the existing rectification application within six weeks.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of three appeals filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning the production of documents in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. relating to EP 4108782. The appellants applied for withdrawal of the appeals with the respondent's consent, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4108782, in which 10x Genomics and Harvard College (appellants) sought to withdraw their appeals against three orders of the Local Division Hamburg that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP. Vizgen consented to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
10x Genomics and Harvard College (collectively '10x') appealed three orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 4108782. Before a decision on the appeals, 10x requested withdrawal of all three appeals, and Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and noted that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost claims.
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.