IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 140 · 4,175 total
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.
Halozyme, Inc. v.Alteogen Inc.
Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering situational‑network advertising. The PTAB found all ten challenged claims (12‑21) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing obviousness over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision finalizes the institution and cancellation of the claims.
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of the ’755 spinal implant patent, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Schäfer, Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby. The petition contends the patent owner concealed key references during prosecution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Headwater's MMS‑related patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of 3GPP standards and multiple prior‑art patents. The petition lists 14 distinct grounds, each tying specific claim limitations to prior references.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2026-00124, allowing Medtronic to proceed with challenging Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00112 after reviewing the merits, finding that Meta Platforms failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against SitNet's patent.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
A revocation action was brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna against VILPE OY concerning European patent EP 2 649 380. An interim conference was held on 9 October 2025 before the judge-rapporteur, who issued an order on 10 October 2025 setting out the procedural decisions taken. Key rulings included deeming the Claimant's Rejoinder timely, rejecting the Claimant's request to forgo translations of documents D1, D2, and D4, admitting a warning letter into the proceedings, setting the case value at EUR 630,000, and confirming the oral hearing for 3 December 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, relating to metal sintering preparations, which is in force in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania. Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG filed an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH, while Vibrantz filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications for patent amendment and a decision on an absolute procedural bar. The Local Chamber Munich addressed the binding effect of a final national revocation judgment under Art. 24.1(e) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, holding that in the absence of specific UPCA regulations, national law governs this question, and also examined private prior use rights in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products
1. Infringement action about shelf dividers. Patent valid and infringed. Indirect infringement. Long-arm jurisdiction. 2. Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement with revised product held inadmissible. There was no assertion of infringement prior to instituting the counterclaim nor had defendant applied in writing for an acknowledgement as meant in R. 61.1 RoP. Such assertion may not be deduced from the mere fact that the patent was invoked with respect to a different product. Rel
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied American Airlines and Southwest Airlines’ petition to institute an IPR against Intellectual Ventures’ ’326 patent covering high‑data‑rate multi‑channel WLAN. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 18 challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑vehicle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art machine‑learning and sensor‑fusion publications such as Djuric, Zhu, Cox, and Ross.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against Netskope’s ’336 patent covering network‑access redirection. The challenger contends that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Subbiah and, for dependent claims, over Hinton and Crandell. Fortinet seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dynamic Mesh Networks' 8,520,691 patent covering a structured wireless mesh network. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01577 involving Tesla and Perceptive Automata LLC. The Board found that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company challenged the slow pace and procedural irregularities in the handling of its Patent Application No. 8004/DELNP/2011, which was subject to multiple pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner raised concerns regarding mechanical issuance of notices and delays in pronouncing orders after hearings were concluded. The Delhi High Court intervened, directing the Controller General's office to expedite the process and pass a consolidated order on all pending oppositions by December 31, 2025.
M.Ramesh v.V.Balu
The Madras High Court set aside an order from the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, which had rejected a trademark infringement suit based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court ruled that since the defendants were not parties to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, and the dispute concerned trademark rights against third-party entities, the commercial suit was maintainable in civil court. This decision allows the original trademark infringement case to proceed.
Mars Incorporated v.Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors
After nearly twenty-five years of protracted litigation over the trademark 'CELEBRATIONS,' Mars Incorporated and Cadbury (India) Ltd have reached a full and final amicable settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this mutual consent, which mandates both parties to withdraw various pending opposition and rectification proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. Furthermore, in a gesture of goodwill, they jointly undertook to distribute confectionery assortments worth five lakhs each to schoolchildren across Delhi.
X v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (X) against the Defendant (Y), who was accused of manufacturing and selling imitation nutrition supplements. The court recognized the Plaintiff's rights across multiple IP domains, including registered trademarks ('WELLVERSED', 'WELLCORE'), house marks, and copyright subsisting in the product packaging/labels. Furthermore, the court granted several procedural exemptions to facilitate urgent investigation via a Local Commissioner.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Inc. et. al.
Total Semiconductor, LLC, a Texas-based licensing company that acquired European Patent EP 2 746 957 B1 from NXP B.V., sued Texas Instruments Incorporation and its German and EMEA sales subsidiaries for alleged infringement of the patent, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The claimant sought injunctive relief, declarations of infringement, recall/removal, destruction, information communication, and a declaration of liability for damages in France and Germany. The Local Division Mannheim addressed issues including the required degree of substantiation for disputed patent features, the admissibility of new indirect infringement arguments raised for the first time at oral hearing, and the proper invocation of general common knowledge in inventive step assessments.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
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.