IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 188 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and cites public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their disputes, leading to the joint termination of sixteen IPRs covering laser‑beam‑steering patents. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to stay court deadlines while they finalize the agreement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,462,767 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Helsinn’s antiemetic patent (US 8,623,826) on the ground that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the asserted synergy is not unexpected.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent, asserting obviousness over Liu and Park publications. The petition details a predictable combination of prior‑art teachings and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 10,951,271 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art disclosures by Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s U.S. Patent 9,943,515 covering netupitant‑based anti‑emetic regimens, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations and lack secondary considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Hermes IP’s ’060 patent covering location‑based services for camera phones, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity petitions to invalidate 39 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent, arguing the claimed netupitant/palonosetron regimen is obvious over prior art and lacks any unexpected synergy.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent covering netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone regimens. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the asserted unexpected synergy. No decision has been issued yet.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 10,510,341, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of SmartKom/Kobsa and Barbara/Ross. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker has filed an IPR petition against Intellectual Ventures' U.S. Patent 8,332,844 covering a block‑level branching store file system, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑27 on the basis of obviousness over four prior‑art combinations.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent (US 10,828,297) on the ground that the claims are obvious over standard chemotherapy anti‑emetic regimens. The petition argues the examiner’s reliance on alleged unexpected synergy is unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB that multiple claims of Helsinn Healthcare's anti-emetic patent were unpatentable. The Board granted institution based on obviousness (103) over several prior art references, paving the way for a full trial.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Helsinn Healthcare's '515 patent covering anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness (103) and prior art, allowing the challenge to proceed.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent covering anti-emetic agents for oncology treatment. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that numerous claims would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s anti-emetic patent (8623826). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 19, allowing the challenge based on obviousness over prior art like MASCC and Hoffmann.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. successfully secured institution of its IPR against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent (9186357) for anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims would be unpatentable over prior art, specifically regarding the combination of triple-drug CINV treatment and superior NK antagonists.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, challenging 17 claims based on obviousness over prior art including Yeo and TS36.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Apex Beam Technologies, challenging 20 claims related to massive MIMO transmission. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam's patent 10,462,767, challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness over prior art standards like Yeo and TS36.
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.