IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 163 of 189 · 5,670 total
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied a petition for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00611, which upheld Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent. The denial applies to three related IPRs as well.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys' Director Review request, arguing the PTAB’s referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that a broad stipulation eliminates any need for duplicate litigation. The petition emphasizes that incorporation‑by‑reference arguments are irrelevant to institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and that Samsung lacks a right to an IPR. The patent owner also asserts the Acting Director’s discretionary denial was lawful.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00526 and related cases, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and discretionary denial authority. The response rejects Samsung’s due‑process and procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the denial to institute several IPRs against Micron's memory patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025-00498 (patent 8,803,214). The denial also applies to three related IPRs covering the same patent.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of IPRs against Micron’s flash‑memory patents, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for patent 11,503,144. The petition argues the denial relied on mistaken facts, misapplied Fintiv factors, and violated procedural due‑process rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution was rejected. The Board upheld the discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to an IPR.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron successfully opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on its 3D NAND patent. The Board finds Yangtze’s arguments unsubstantiated and denies the review.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner offers no statutory grounds, misstates parallel litigation, and has waived procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Keyless Licensing’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,976,922. The Board affirmed the earlier denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition challenging Motive Technologies’ camera‑calibration patent, arguing that six grounds of obviousness under §103 render claims 1‑7 unpatentable.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 9‑12 of Maxeon’s 8,222,516 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB rulings.
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.