IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 173 of 189 · 5,670 total
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,973,596, arguing they are obvious over Pertijs and Tang prior art. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Apotex Inc. et al. v.Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
Apotex petitions the PTAB to review US 7,919,499, covering a long‑acting naltrexone formulation, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Comer, Nuwayser, Rubio and Wright. The petition cites a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’436 patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art network‑selection references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for inter partes review of XtreamEdge’s U.S. Patent No. 10,944,634, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑management patents. The petition challenges all 20 claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that ControlTec's patent claims are obvious over prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR and a trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on analogous teachings in refrigeration equipment patents.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems in an IPR against XtreamEdge, finding they failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board specifically rejected arguments that prior art references taught the specific bandwidth determination limitations of the challenged claims.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation concerning European Patent EP4070727 were withdrawn by all parties before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. All parties consented to the withdrawal and indicated no cost decision was requested. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
C-Kore Systems Limited filed an infringement action against Novawell before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 265 793, and Novawell filed a counterclaim for revocation. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 10 December 2024, and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the proceedings and counterclaim be dismissed, kept the settlement details confidential, and noted the parties' agreement on costs with no order as to costs.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
This case before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerned European Patent EP4070727 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. All parties requested withdrawal of their respective claims, including the infringement claim and counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, granted Dexcom's request for reimbursement of 20% of court fees, and set the value of the actions at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP4070727 before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. All parties subsequently requested withdrawal of their respective claims and consented to the closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees to the claimant.
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 case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,798,006 was met with a detailed response from Four Batons Wireless, arguing the denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and APA. The Board has not yet ruled on the Director Review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s patent on real‑time wireless interface selection, asserting obviousness over Guo and Neave references.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. et al.
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately revoked the patent in all Contracting Member States, finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty over prior art and that the proposed amendments added matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed, and FUJIFILM was ordered to bear the costs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung Electronics and Headwater Research settled their disputes across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00482, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner also withdrew its request for Director Review or Rehearing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
CosMX seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde’s battery patent. The request argues that conflicting claim constructions in two parallel petitions require denial under the Director’s guidance and discretionary authority.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s attempt to overturn a PTAB institution of a lithium‑battery patent, arguing the parallel‑petition issue is moot and the Board’s decision was proper and efficient.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The USPTO denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00431, leaving the institution of Ningde Amperex's battery patent intact.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology's lithium‑ion battery patent, arguing that the claimed electrolyte ratios and electrode compaction ranges are obvious in view of Zeng, Sunose, Matsuoka, Kim and other references. The petitioner seeks a finding that all 17 claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
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.