IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 189 of 189 · 5,670 total
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent (10924573) covering Content Delivery Networks. The Board instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google could prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR2025-00840, favoring Intellectual Ventures II LLC's request for discretionary denial. The decision cited parallel district court and IPR proceedings as reasons to conserve resources.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and Shenzhen Litime reached a settlement with LithiumHub Technologies, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00822 under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech, Shenzhen Litime and LithiumHub Technologies filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business‑confidential information, invoking statutory authority for confidentiality.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
The parties to IPR2025‑00825 settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
IKEA and Pointwise jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement in IPR2025-00798 be treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board’s decision on the confidentiality request is pending.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00798 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding per settlement and statutory provisions.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
LithiumHub Technologies and Shenzhen FBTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994, seeking Board approval to dismiss the proceeding.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Court decision.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s 11,799,131 patent covering lithium‑ion battery electrolytes and electrode structures, seeking cancellation of claims 14‑17 on obviousness grounds.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Chinese challengers have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of LithiumHub’s ‘994 starter‑battery patent, arguing obviousness over six prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Berggren Oy v.Ex Parte
Berggren Oy, a firm of UPC representatives based in Helsinki, filed a request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure seeking access to all written pleadings and evidence from a completed revocation action (UPC 252/2023) between NanoString Technologies Europe Limited and President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP2794928. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich), granted the request, finding it both admissible and allowable. Access was ordered subject to the redaction of personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. v.Kuppanna Foods
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd filed suit against Kuppanna Foods, among others, alleging multiple infringements across trademarks and copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'KUPPANNA FOODS' and 'Kuppanna', as well as damages for dilution and tarnishment. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the Memorandum of Compromise.
Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.
This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed that the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation should be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred. The court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and scheduled an interim hearing for January 16, 2025, and an oral hearing for March 25, 2025.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.
M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
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.