IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 157 of 189 · 5,670 total
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The USPTO Director denied Amgen’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602, leaving the institution denials in place.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,255 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement. Institution of the petition is pending.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed an IPR petition challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s U.S. Pat. 9,856,320, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior‑art clinical‑trial protocols and dosing disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that there is no ground for discretionary denial.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑3 of Viking Arm’s ’473 patent covering a handheld jacking tool. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over the German Gruber publication combined with the earlier Braselmann patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s 10,174,113 melanoma immunotherapy patent, arguing the claims are obvious over public clinical‑trial data and lack written‑description support for the 480 mg dose.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix seeks IPR of SitePro’s 11,726,504 patent covering remote fluid‑handling control, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over Cardamone, Kahn, and SCADA references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s 9,898,014 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, asserting that Kahn and Gutierrez patents anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s ‘403 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
SmartSky Networks, LLC v.Gogo Business Aviation LLC et al.
SmartSky Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Gogo’s ‘600 ATG communication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Kolon’s 9,789,731 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, arguing that all seven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SitePro's remote fluid‑handling patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Kahn and Gutierrez patents and highlighting discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of SitePro’s ‘680 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s fluid‑handling control patent, asserting that three prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims and that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix's IPR petition against SitePro's patent (11,294,403 B2) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art reference Kahn did not disclose the necessary 'remote control' capabilities for fluid-handling devices, defeating both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for TankLogix against SitePro regarding remote fluid control systems. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, specifically rejecting attempts to equate 'process data' with the claimed 'target value.'
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
Cellectis v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cellectis appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method involving T-Cells. The appeal sought permission to file amended claims and complete specification. The court examined whether these amendments were permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited v.Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademarks, 'Niva' and 'Bupa,' through content creation and circulation. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the trademark infringement claims and noted that the matter required specialized handling. Consequently, the court ordered the papers to be placed before the IP Division of the Court for appropriate listing.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492, owned by Dyson Technology Limited, before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the proceedings were stayed and subsequently the Claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the Defendant's consent. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the Claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic UAB
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 owned by Dyson Technology Limited before the Central Division Milan. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon's 10,196,765 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, asserting that all six claims are obvious over prior art such as Nakayasu and Fritsch.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
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.