IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 185 of 189 · 5,670 total
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, arguing that retroactive policy changes violated due process. The petition focuses on the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses in a parallel ITC case and the newly‑created “settled expectations” doctrine.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks successfully defended its wireless front‑end module patent as the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. The Board cited all six Fintiv factors and the patent owner’s settled expectations to justify the discretionary denial.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, and Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for provisional measures, and the respondents consented to the withdrawal and the release of the security deposit. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This revised order concerns proceedings before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding the number of auxiliary requests filed by the patent proprietor (Harvard College) in its application to amend the patent at issue. The panel modified the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had limited auxiliary requests to a one-digit number, holding that 55 auxiliary requests were not categorically unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the 42 validity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation. The proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Opposition Division decision, and Harvard was ordered to submit its auxiliary requests within 20 days after that decision.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies filed an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 against Realtek Semiconductor before the Local Chamber Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on 9 December 2024 that was never served on Realtek, Avago withdrew its application on 3 January 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Avago to bear the costs.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Reed Semiconductor Corp.
Monolithic Power Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Reed Semiconductor’s ’955 patent as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’887 patent, asserting that the claimed stepped‑profile substrate and edge‑mounted TOSA modules are anticipated or obvious over prior patents by Kuhara and Ho.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
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.