IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 28 of 140 · 4,175 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,494,904, which covers online advertising technologies. The Board is asked to end the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their OLED display patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged the '904 patent, leading to its institution after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The challenge focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding automated profile collection and data targeting methods.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated obviousness against certain claims of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337) in a PTAB Final Written Decision. The Board found that Claims 2 and 3 were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Signify Holding B V v.Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Signify Holding B V sought relief against Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati regarding the use of the mark 'dignify'. The court noted the defendant's submission that they do not intend to continue using the mark and expressed willingness to resolve the suit amicably. Consequently, the High Court granted a one-week standover period to facilitate settlement while temporarily restraining the defendant from making any further sales under the disputed trademark.
Sujatha Rajkumar v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Sujatha Rajkumar filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention against the Registrar of Trade Marks for the undue delay in processing an application related to the assignment of her trademark 'VELVETTE'. The petitioner sought recognition of the subsequent proprietor based on an Assignment Deed. While the court did not rule on the merits of the assignment, it issued a binding direction to the Respondent to dispose of the pending application within six weeks, treating the counsel's assurance as a formal undertaking.
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against Biotech Visioncare's trademark application for 'BIOVISION'. The petitioner successfully argued that a subsequent successful registration of the same mark provided grounds to reconsider the initial denial. Consequently, the court directed the Trademark Registry to freshly hear the original 2016 application while taking into account the later certificate of registration.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH et. al.
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal standard for assessing unallowable extension of subject matter (added matter), particularly in the context of a patent derived from a divisional application.
Hurom v.NUC
Hurom Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 relating to a juice extractor, brought a patent infringement action against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim. Hurom alleged that NUC's slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' fell within the scope of the patent-in-suit. The proceedings were conducted in English, with oral hearings held on 28 January 2025 and 4 September 2025, and the decision was delivered on 2 October 2025.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 October 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Niclas Gaj
Expert e-Commerce GmbH, Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The appellants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH (part of the expert retail group), appealed against the decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of October 10, 2024, which had addressed both an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_764/2024 and UPC_CoA_774/2024) were heard together at an oral hearing on July 11, 2025, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening in support of Viosys.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samung Electronics Co. Ltd. a.o.
This is a rectification order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 2 October 2025 in patent infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. The court, on its own motion, corrected paragraph 6 of its earlier order dated 29 September 2025 to fix a clerical error and a calculation error, directing the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees paid, amounting to €14,400.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 Oktober 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack,
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences’ challenge to Spruce Biosciences’ ’201 patent succeeded; all 19 claims were found unpatentable for lack of written description under §112(a).
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences' challenge succeeded; claims 1‑25 of Spruce Biosciences' ’908 patent were found unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Board applied Ariad standards and rejected the genus claim.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 11,007,201 patent covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Discretionary denial is contested.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
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.