IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 168 of 189 · 5,670 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Proxicom Wireless’s proximity‑based transaction patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all nine challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the claims anticipated or obvious over prior art references Perttila and Swartz.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 59 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth beacon patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and requests institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent, alleging that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Martin, Rafati, Gauthier and Terrien.
Safe Arc Technology, LLC v.PetroHab LLC et al.
Safe Arc Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PetroHab’s ’775 patent covering modular welding enclosures, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior art references Wardlaw, Ferrante, and Ballinger.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’918 patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen and related references.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute inter partes review against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11687971.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11443344.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR challenge brought by Google LLC against Secure Communication Technologies' patent 11334918.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
M/S Aravind Laboratories v.Payal Novelty Private Limited
In this trademark dispute concerning the 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi,' the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order. The court directed the respondents to attempt modifications to their product's get-up and trade dress. Furthermore, they must submit copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed while addressing potential infringement concerns.
M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants) v.Compagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
M/S. Arvind Laboratories v.Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhania And Anr
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim direction requiring the respondents to modify the get-up and trade dress of their product, 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi.' The respondents were mandated to forward copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025. This order allows both parties time to adjust the disputed branding while keeping the litigation moving toward a resolution.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers v.Hari Om And Co. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers, against Hari Om And Co. The court cancelled Respondent No. 1's registered mark because the petitioner demonstrated prior and continuous use of the dominant feature 'ROHIT' since 2000, predating the respondent's claim of use in 2005. Given the identical nature of the marks (despite language differences) and the commonality of goods, the court found that allowing the registration would inevitably cause confusion among consumers.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim found infringement of the patent, dismissed the revocation and FRAND counterclaims, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, information/accounting, and provisional damages of EUR 250,000, subject to a EUR 10 million security.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking a court-determined license. The Local Chamber Mannheim found the patent infringed and valid, partially granted the infringement action, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and dismissed the FRAND counterclaim, ordering the defendants to bear the costs.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the “settled expectations” standard is a lawful discretionary factor and that Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments fail.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SoundClear’s 9,031,259 patent, alleging that the claimed speech‑processing system is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists 15 grounds covering VAD, DOA, adaptive filtering and microphone‑array arrangements.
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.