IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 20 of 189 · 5,670 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution for iCashe's NFC payment patent, arguing that USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due process, and that the Board ignored Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 9,483,722.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s patent. iCashe argues the Director acted properly under established memos and statutes, and that Samsung’s due‑process claims fail. The patent owner requests denial of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review petition after the USPTO denied institution of seven IPRs challenging iCashe’s patent. The petition also references concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against iCashe, leaving the institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in the iCashe payment‑system IPR. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the case.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung seeks Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. iCashe contends the USPTO correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no protected due‑process interest. The patent owner urges denial of the review request.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without proper rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, constituting an abuse of discretion.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Court decision.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and urges the Board to institute review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition to invalidate iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references to argue obviousness and asserts that PTAB discretion should not be exercised.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC patent (U.S. 11,694,053), asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bangs, Kerdraon, Koh, and Fisher. The petition seeks institution on claims 1‑8 and 17‑20 under §§102 and 103.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC‑related patent 9,483,722, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over prior art such as Finkenzeller, Kerdraon, Koh, and Bangs. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Sri. Manjappa Chatrad v.3M India Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 416744 ('Road Safety Device') held by Respondent No. 2 (3M Innovative Properties Company). The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that patent revocation is a civil remedy falling under the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and should be filed as a Civil Petition, not a Writ Petition.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses complex procedural issues arising from concurrent litigation between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and The Controller of Patents. Specifically, the court examined whether a revocation petition remains maintainable even if the patentee has already raised an invalidity defence in an infringement suit. Furthermore, the bench deliberated on the highly arguable question of whether a patent can be revoked after its term has expired by efflux of time. The court decided to list the matter for further hearing and stayed the impugned order.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Post-Grant Opposition filed by Mylan against Patent No. IN 315447 held by Respondent No. 1. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
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.