IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 18 of 140 · 4,175 total
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted several critical reliefs to the Plaintiffs in their trademark infringement suit against Y. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, masked the parties' identities during initial proceedings, and permitted an ex parte interim injunction supported by a Local Commissioner's commission. This decision allows the plaintiffs, who own the 'HERO' brand, to swiftly investigate and address the alleged sale of counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. 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 filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to limit public access to the agreement, citing Board rules and regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 10,668,430 patent, arguing the case should be handled in an existing MDL and that the Board misapplied the privity analysis under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and MidAmerican Energy have jointly moved to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates settled an IPR against BirchTech, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for two petitioners while keeping the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Merus N.V.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,358,286 covering bispecific antibodies. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lazar, Arathoon, and Cabrera, and argues against discretionary denial.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, finding that the Petitioners' real party in interest (RPI) status was not definitively proven. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues before determining if the petitions are time-barred.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order from the Central Division Paris addresses Belparts Group N.V.'s application to join its counterclaim for infringement with the main infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich, in the context of multi-jurisdictional proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3812870. The dispute involves parallel infringement and revocation actions across the Local Division Munich and the Central Division Paris, with all IMI defendants consenting to the referral. The panel considered Rule 340.1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding connection of cases, taking into account the scheduling of proceedings and the pending Boards of Appeal hearing at the European Patent Office.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occultech GmbH. v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a. o.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2, issued on October 31, 2025. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, sought provisional measures in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out key legal principles regarding the scope of protection of device claims, the burden of presentation and proof in preliminary injunction proceedings, and the handling of disputed translations of prior art documents.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.
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.