IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 23 of 189 · 5,670 total
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research filed a notice of partial settlement with Apple, licensing its patents and dropping all Apple‑related claims, while the IPR against Amazon continues.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of the ’183 Patent covering undelivered‑message thresholds. The petition asserts that a combination of four prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,991,601, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references covering wireless messaging. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,224,794, which claims a wireless‑network clearinghouse system. The petitioner contends that all 32 claims are obvious in view of prior‑art references such as Dawson, Geranio, Aaron, Daley, Scherzer and Chmaytelli. No secondary considerations are offered to overcome the obviousness argument.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over CDN‑related prior art (Dilley, Russell) combined with Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑construction arguments for key terms.
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of U.S. Patent 12,131,357, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art web‑media platforms (Fosnacht) combined with native‑app techniques (Kirkpatrick) and advertising methods (Sharma). The petition meets all procedural requirements and seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition to invalidate Weple IP Holdings' 12‑billion‑dollar streaming‑media patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over earlier web‑video and native‑app patents. The petition outlines three grounds of obviousness and discusses discretionary denial issues.
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Weple IP's 12,112,357 patent covering mobile streaming media. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑13 of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN patents Dilley, Russell, and Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings and proposed claim constructions.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 9,860,595, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds combining Tecot, Lee, Logan, Poslinski, and McElhatten. The case is pending institution.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2026-00107, finding that Apple Inc. failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00105 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite reviewing discretionary considerations.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against HBCU Messaging US LP, finding that Apple failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00050, allowing the challenger to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the registration of the mark 'VNYABAIE' in Class 3, which was registered in the name of Anupam Srivastava. The Delhi High Court issued notices to all parties and directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, setting a future date for hearing.
M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P. v.M/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v.Inkmango Inc. & Anr.
Juggernaut Books initiated contempt proceedings against Inkmango Inc. alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement decree regarding the publication of mandated disclaimers. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling its obligations, the respondents failed to publish the required notices on their digital platforms. While the court acknowledged the dispute over compliance, it did not immediately punish the respondent, instead directing them to file a compliance affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing.
Royal Coffee Works v.The Registrar Of Trademarks; Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited
Royal Coffee Works challenged the delay in processing its trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was opposed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited regarding the use of 'tea' in the product description. The Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner's grievance concerning procedural delays. The court directed the Registrar to expedite the matter and pass appropriate orders on both the original trademark application and the opposition within a three-month timeframe.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Oerlikon's request for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. The Court rejected the request to include first instance costs (already awarded by the Milan Local Division) in the security, but ordered Bhagat to provide a security of €19,000 for appeal costs within 10 days of notification, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-authorized bank.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against three Vivo entities concerning European patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over the FRAND-related claims and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and deferred the question of admissibility of the FRAND terms claim (A.II) to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Anr.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted an order for inspection and evidence preservation in favor of Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device. The applicant sought inspection of the respondents' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne to gather evidence of alleged infringement of claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 of the patent. The court ordered the inspection to be carried out by an expert and court bailiff, with detailed measurements, photographs, and potentially disassembly, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because Sun Patent's request for a FRAND determination constituted a standalone claim outside the scope of Article 32 UPCA, and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and ruling that the admissibility of the FRAND-related claim (A.II) under Article 32.1 UPCA would be addressed in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Ashique Exports, setting aside an adverse abandonment order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner argued that they were never properly served with the Notice of Opposition regarding their 'Vi-Wash' trademark application. The court found that since the official records lacked reference to the petitioner's registered email ID, the statutory requirement for deemed service under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act was not met. Consequently, the case has been restored for a fresh hearing after proper notice is issued.
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.