IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 189 · 5,670 total
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (11926859) covering heterodimeric antibodies. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on written description and obviousness grounds.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10668430) covering mercury removal from flue gas. The Board found Petitioners established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness and anticipation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied the Patent Owner's request for Director Review, remanding the cases to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses in IPR2025-00423.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech's patents, instructing the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings into a single petition per patent if RPI requirements are met.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, finding that the Petitioners' real party in interest (RPI) status was not definitively proven. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues before determining if the petitions are time-barred.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request under R. 9.3 RoP to stay the first instance proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing its Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation. Vivo had sought the stay pending the outcome of its preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over Sun Patent Trust's active FRAND rate determination claim and pending the appeal concerning the confidentiality order. The Court held that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a preliminary objection decision, and that as a general rule, it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays of proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2 (relating to an occlusion instrument) by the MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court rejected the application for provisional measures, finding that the requirements for such measures were not met, and ordered Occlutech to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied the patent owner's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple’s IPR petition against Samsung’s 802.11ax‑related patent was granted institution, opening the path to potentially invalidate claims 1‑14.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Apple’s challenge to the ’077 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over Bharadwaj and Yu references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple seeks director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi patents, contending the Board misapplied the “diverse subject‑matter” test and ignored Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s inter partes review petition against a load‑balancing patent, finding the obviousness arguments over Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski insufficiently particularized. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Wilus seeks director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on Wi‑Fi patents, arguing settled expectations and inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references. The PTAB found the petition lacked the required particularity and denied institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several Samsung‑related IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR against Adeia Guides before the Board instituted the trial. The motion relies on prior PTAB precedent that favors early termination to save resources.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s patent 8,280,987 before the Board had instituted the trial. The motion argues the proceeding is still in a preliminary stage and seeks a speedy, cost‑effective termination.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of Samsung's IPR against Headwater's patent, citing the parallel proceeding's trial date as a decisive discretionary factor.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research settled its patent claims against Apple, licensing the patents and withdrawing related allegations, while the broader litigation against Amazon continues.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Guides’ ’324 patent before the Board had instituted the trial. The motion cites prior PTAB decisions that favor early termination to save resources.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research settled its Apple-related patent claims, limiting its lawsuit against Amazon in the Google‑vs‑Headwater case.
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.