IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 179 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent, alleging procedural abuse and statutory non‑compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review, contending that the PTAB abused its discretion in denying institution of an IPR against Cerence’s ‘486 patent. The arguments focus on misapplication of Fintiv factors, unfounded settled‑expectations claims, and a breach of §314(c) notice requirements.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial on Cerence’s patent 8,825,486. The order confirms the original denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on Maxell’s ‘188 patent, asserting that claims 1‑9 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering thumbnail image editing and protection.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,244,284 covering a display apparatus and video processing method, arguing that claims 18‑20 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references involving dual‑radio devices, Bluetooth, WLAN, and related standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’486 patent on contrastive‑stress speech synthesis, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art TTS systems.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 17 claims of Cerence’s ’291 speech‑synthesis patent, asserting obviousness over Walker, Matsumoto, Malsheen and Bellegarda references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’671 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing text‑to‑speech technologies. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor instituting the review.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja sought, and Dyson agreed to, either a suspension of the cost assessment proceedings or alternatively an extension of the deadline to file a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction and ordering Dyson to pay SharkNinja's costs. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests as inadmissible, holding that the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP to file a cost assessment application begins with service of the substantive decision in the main proceedings, not with service of an order on interim measures.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidential treatment of certain information in its appeal brief. The Court of Appeal rejected Amazon's application, holding that the information sought to be protected was already covered by an existing protective order issued by the Local Division Munich on December 19, 2024, which continued to apply during the appeal proceedings. The Court further found that Amazon's application was insufficiently specific regarding any information not already covered by the existing protective order.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. & Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the court to close the proceedings without a costs decision. Applying Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, the court declared the proceedings closed.
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 EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l., Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Amazon's request under Rule 262.2 RoP to classify certain information as confidential in its appeal against a Munich Local Division order. The court granted the request to classify specific information as confidential and exclude it from third-party file access, provisionally ordered the parties and their representatives to maintain confidentiality, and set a potential penalty of up to €250,000 per violation.
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 EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently applied to withdraw their respective claims, with each consenting to the other's withdrawal. The Court of First Instance declared the proceedings closed without issuing a cost decision.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,459,151, citing public‑policy reasons for early termination.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN settled all patent disputes by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement that grants Samsung worldwide rights to KPN’s patents and ends the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,549,151 patent covering SIP/RTSP gateway functionality. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds citing Alston, Gateva, Mela, and Fajardo. Institutional decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and KPN settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate six inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00512 covering U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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.