IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 27 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google's request to institute IPR against Cellular South's patent (11,126,853), finding the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that no merits decision has been made. The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review Request, asserting that the new RPI arguments are untimely and that the Director’s discretionary denial was proper.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology Group settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple filed a joint motion to end the case based on a settlement. The Commission found no reason to deny the motion and declined to review the initial determination.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,816,249 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on three prior‑art patents (Burns, Yang, Guruswamy). The petition argues that the Board should institute trial and rejects any discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,106,824 patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art IDS patents (Burns, Yang, and Wittenberg). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Align’s 10,791,936 dental scanning patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability for the entire claim set.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully moved its IPR against Align Technology's dental scanning patent to the trial phase. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution on all 20 claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution for American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board specifically rejected the obviousness arguments concerning partitioning and descriptions limitations based on prior art references Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH. et. al.
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Belkin GmbH, ****, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited, **** and **** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation. The court addressed key legal questions including the autonomous interpretation of 'offering' under Article 25(a) of the European Patent Convention Agreement, the liability of managing directors for patent infringement committed by their companies, and the requirements for corrective measures such as recall, removal from distribution channels, and destruction. The decision establishes that offering must be understood in an economic sense as an 'invitatio ad offerendum' and does not require a price indication or actual delivery capability.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 9,208,423 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over prior art Doughty, Bursch, and Fox. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.
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.