IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 140 · 4,175 total
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Airspace Systems’ U.S. Patent 10,249,199 covering UAV discrimination and countermeasure technology. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests institution of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V.'s patent, arguing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over Beel and Dinka for at least one claim, leading to a trial date.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Axon Enterprise against Airspace Systems, challenging claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,249,199 B2 based on obviousness over prior art (Whitmarsh).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The order addresses the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, restricting access to certain unredacted documents containing trade secrets. The applicants (Roche entities) and respondents (Menarini entities) agreed on the classification of the information as confidential and on the circle of persons authorized to access it on the applicants' side.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools et. al.
Robert Bosch GmbH filed an infringement action against Grizzly Tools and three Lidl entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1, asserting infringement in Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Poland. The defendants filed separate objections under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's jurisdiction over non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the UK). The Mannheim Local Chamber rejected the objections, holding that establishing international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation requires only demonstrating that the defendant has its seat in an EU member state of the court seized, and that under Article 71b(1) Brussels Ia, it suffices to show the seat is in one of the states establishing the common court.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Bruker's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's decision to reimburse only 60% of the court fees paid for Bruker's application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP. The court held that a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the separate procedure for the determination of damages governed by Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP, requiring payment of both a fixed fee and a value-based fee. The court further found that combining a request to establish liability with a request to lay open books does not entitle the applicant to a reduced or no fee.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA Sophia Genetics SAS Sophia Genetics SRL Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
HydraFacial and Eunsung Global settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial's hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing errors in Fintiv factor analysis and emphasizing efficiency. The Board had denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00445 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,550,052. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties request dismissal of the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MOTORTECH filed an unopposed motion asking the PTAB to treat its settlement with Altronic as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the IPR record. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and seeks limited access to the settlement documents.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MotorTech and Altronic have settled their dispute, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the pending IPR on patent 7,401,603. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.
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.