IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 175 of 189 · 5,670 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in an infringement action involving European Patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese sought complete refusal of access to unredacted versions of its written submissions, while Defendants 1 (Alpinestars S.p.A.) and 6 (Motocard Bike, S.L.) opposed this and requested access. The Court established a 'confidential club' limiting access to specified lawyers/representatives and natural persons from each party, ordered production of English translations, and granted leave to appeal.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, confirms the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025, and sets the end of the written procedure as May 14, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless successfully opposed Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a Wi‑Fi authentication patent, resulting in the Board denying the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung’s Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings opposes Samsung's Director Review Request, asserting the request raises new, unauthorized arguments and that Samsung lacks due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner contends the Board’s actions complied with existing USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request, asserting the request contains unauthorized new arguments and that Samsung’s due‑process and APA claims lack merit. The patent owner contends the Acting Director acted in line with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, arguing that the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petitions violates due process and the APA after the USPTO retroactively rescinded the Vidal Memo. The company contends the Board ignored its timely Sotera stipulation, which should have shielded the petitions from denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the original denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries IPL and WPL settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,596,517 for those parties.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s energy affiliates and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MidAmerican, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny the Director’s discretionary denial request and affirm institution of their IPRs challenging a mercury‑control patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
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.