IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 183 of 189 · 5,670 total
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against BrodTi Inc.'s patent (11416898), challenging claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, including Nicholas and Laidlaw.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged Neurelis, Inc.'s patent claims covering nasal drug delivery formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Neurelis, Inc.'s nasal drug formulations patent (8895546) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB institution decision allows Padagis to proceed with the unpatentability arguments against all 22 claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics over a patent covering optical isolator arrays, focusing on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Applied Optoelectronics Inc.'s patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102). The Board specifically rejected arguments based on prior art references Shen and Soldano regarding optical receiving devices.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics' optical patent (10313024), finding the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references Mizobuchi and Akashi.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted to the plaintiff. The court considered arguments that the plaintiff had suppressed facts, specifically claiming they only discovered the infringing product on 30th October 2024, when in fact they were aware of the defendant's mark since 2018. Consequently, the court vacated the injunction and referred the matter to mediation.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg concerns the bifurcation of infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC and Defendants Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH all favored referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris. The court referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Central Division Paris while continuing with the infringement action, scheduling the oral hearing not before early summer 2025.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patents at issue (EP3743812 and EP2628080) were granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is the common language in the relevant field of computer technology, the balancing of interests favored maintaining German as the language of proceedings. The Court emphasized that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are medium-sized enterprises, and ensuring fair access to justice for such enterprises is an important objective of the UPCA.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court overturned a decision by the Local Division Hamburg which had held that the UPC lacked jurisdiction to quantify damages following a final national infringement judgment. The court ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction for a standalone claim for determination of damages after a national court has established patent infringement and the infringer's obligation to pay damages, and that this jurisdiction extends to infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the European patent was still in force at that time.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court found that STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 owned by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, which relates to a color- and light-mixing collecting optic for outdoor display panels. The court granted injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and removal from distribution channels, as well as a finding of liability for damages, but rejected the plaintiff's request for publication of the decision. The intervener Chainzone Technology was ordered to bear costs jointly with the defendant.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE – Withdrawal of Cost Assessment Application v.Ex Parte
This order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. While the main infringement and revocation proceedings had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, the cost assessment application remained pending at first instance. The Rapporteur held that the first-instance court retained jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the cost assessment application, and that the Rapporteur alone had original competence under Rule 156.2 RoP to allow the withdrawal.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑10 of Ningde Amperex’s ’927 lithium‑ion battery separator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Nishikawa, Chen and Zhang. The petition seeks institution and a finding that all claims are unpatentable.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims 1-19 against Brook & Whittle Ltd.'s patent. The Board adopted a specific, technical construction for 'recyclable' based on prosecution history and found sufficient evidence across grounds including anticipation (102), obviousness (103), and indefiniteness (112).
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.