IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 172 of 189 · 5,670 total
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing they are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against SoundClear Technologies LLC regarding voice-content control claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over the prior art reference 'Shin.'
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
Dwarka Matlani v.Jay Daryani
Dwarka Matlani filed a rectification petition challenging the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label and packaging titled 'ROYAL'. The petitioner argued that the registered artwork was a slavish imitation of their own established trademark/label, which they had used since 1997. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the registration process concealed material facts regarding the true ownership of the artistic work. The court found that the respondent's label was an imitation and lacked originality, making it ineligible for copyright protection. Given these findings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the removal of the impugned copyright from the Register.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
Mahle Gmbh v.Madan & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Mahle Gmbh to implead Mr. Ankur Jain (M/s A.J. Enterprises) as a defendant after local commissioner reports found counterfeit 'MAHLE' pistons at his premises. Consequently, the court extended the existing interim injunction order against this newly added party. This decision underscores the judiciary's willingness to ensure all parties involved in counterfeiting activities are brought before the court for proper adjudication.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence with Counterclaim for Revocation to 11 March 2025, citing an agreement between the parties and the substantial workload of their legal counsels. The Presiding Judge granted the request, noting that the extension was only a maximum of one week and that the deadline for defendant 3 would be shortened.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 511 174, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese for its representatives at the oral hearing, which the Kodak defendants opposed. The court allowed FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense but declined to make the interpretation costs part of the proceedings' costs.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec seeks director review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against its 18‑year‑old cochlear‑implant patent. Anthony Inc. counters, asserting the Director acted within discretion and that a material error involving the Carter reference exists.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec, LLC seeks Director review to deny institution of an IPR against its 18‑year‑old anti‑sweat controller patent, arguing strong settled expectations and non‑material prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless responded to Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution, arguing the Board acted within its discretion under §314 and the Fintiv factors. The Board denied the review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors entered into a settlement agreement releasing all claims and dismissing the related district court case, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Anthony Inc.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00559, leaving ControlTec's patent 7,207,181 instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00493 concerning patent 7,502,348. The decision upholds the earlier refusal to institute the IPR.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Nielsen’s U.S. Patent 11,871,058 covering methods to determine media presentation duration from set‑top‑box tuning data. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar, and seeks institution of the IPR.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ControlTec’s 7,207,181 patent covering condensation control in refrigerated display cases. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed a petition to cancel Number 14 B.V.’s 7,812,665 op‑amp offset‑calibration patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’348 patent covering silent proactive handoff. The petition relies on obviousness over Hsu and three additional references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon seeks IPR cancellation of VirtaMove’s 7,784,058 patent, asserting that shared‑library implementations disclosed in early‑2000s papers render all challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
VideoAmp, Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of Nielsen’s ’250 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems (Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar). The petition includes expert testimony and argues against discretionary denial.
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.