IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 189 · 5,670 total
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a video‑encoding patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that Google’s statutory arguments are unfounded.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a media‑server patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is exclusive and the petition’s statutory arguments are misplaced.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for patent 8,230,101, asserting statutory and procedural violations. The request seeks reversal of the decision and a compliant institution ruling.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE have settled their IPR dispute with Champion Power over a dual‑fuel selector switch. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw from the proceeding.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over multiple patents, leading them to jointly move to terminate the pending IPR for patent 11,272,535.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to patent 9,042,448 owned by Advanced Coding Technologies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies’ 2012 media‑server patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Hannibal IP’s ’911 patent covering PDCCH monitoring and DRX power‑saving techniques. The petition relies on Nimbalker and several 3GPP documents as prior art under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 9,146,925, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art jukebox systems and audio‑processing patents. The petition also argues against a § 314(a) or § 325(d) denial, citing favorable Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2015 video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art combinations involving Phek, Martins, He, and Sakazume. The petition argues the examiner never considered these combinations, seeking institution of the review.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
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.