IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 170 of 189 · 5,670 total
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3069315. Following a settlement between the parties, the court allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the jointly filed nullity counterclaim brought by the Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The court declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against U.S. Patent 12,015,118 B2, covering lithium-ion battery electrode structures. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (Ishigaki) and obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
Purple Innovation, Llc v.Mr. Martin Davis Trading As M/S Purple Martin Mattreses And Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Purple Innovation, LLC, to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding three newly registered trademark applications. While the suit continues, the court noted that both parties use deceptively similar marks ('PURPLE' and 'PURPLE MARTIN') for mattresses. The court encouraged a settlement, instructing the plaintiff to consider dropping claims for costs and damages if the defendants agree to adopt a new mark.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a jointly filed counterclaim for revocation following a settlement between the parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the value of the dispute at EUR 8,000,000, and ruled on the allocation of court fees and costs.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1.b RoP to access the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a declaration of non-infringement action related to EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's application, finding that its interest in using the documents in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings was outweighed by the need to safeguard the integrity of the UPC proceedings, and also dismissed STADAPHARM's objection regarding the digital signature on Novartis's written pleadings.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG
STADAPHARM GmbH applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to access written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) between Accord Healthcare companies and Novartis AG concerning a Declaration of Non-Infringement action regarding EP2501384 (nilotinib). The Milan Central Division dismissed STADAPHARM's request, holding that the general interest of justice and integrity of the proceedings outweighed STADAPHARM's interest in accessing the documents, particularly given that Novartis had not yet filed any submissions and that granting access could interfere with Novartis's free legal defense in parallel German preliminary injunction proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, the parties — Panasonic Holdings Corporation as plaintiff and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH as defendants — reached a settlement and jointly withdrew the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. EP 2 568 724. The withdrawal was filed after the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Oracle America, Inc. v.Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Oracle America's petition seeking rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark, JAVATPOINT/. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Oracle's well-established 'JAVA' mark, which has been used since the 1990s. Given the identical target consumer base in educational services (Class 41), the court ruled that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark to ride on Oracle's goodwill and reputation, leading to its removal from the Trade Marks Register.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM has filed an IPR petition challenging Croga’s 11,178,104 patent covering sandboxed network isolation, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court heard a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 548 648, owned by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material such as wood chips. The court found the patent invalid for lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D3 and D9, particularly regarding the feature of ribs arranged at an angle to the circumferential direction. The patent was declared fully invalid, the infringement action was dismissed, and costs were split 3/4 to the claimant and 1/4 to the defendant.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards, relied on faulty facts, and violated due process.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 ‘039 patent was denied. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, citing strong settled expectations and procedural compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
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.