IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 189 · 5,670 total
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.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2026-00121, allowing Medtronic to challenge 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.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon's IPR2026-00088 while denying it for related PGR and IPR proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
Revocation action brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (Poland) against Vilpe Oy (Finland) concerning European patent EP 2 649 380 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 9 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural orders regarding the timeliness of submissions, translation requirements for evidence documents, reordering of auxiliary requests, and the admission of a warning letter into the proceedings. The oral hearing was confirmed for 3 December 2025 in Munich, with the value of the case set at EUR 630,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of the Hague) found that EP 2 432 351 B1, relating to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf, was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP). The court granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, and damages against BSRP, while dismissing BSRP's counterclaim for revocation and declaring its counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement inadmissible.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
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.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’282 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging all 35 claims of Netskope’s ’282 patent covering dynamic firewall rule updates, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Coss patent and the Ke publication.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PSLC’s ’857 microgrid load‑control patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering frequency‑based load shedding.
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.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,448,367 owned by Applied Optoelectronics. The petition asserts that all nine claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical transceiver adapters.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging PSLC’s ’857 patent covering backup power source load control, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier microgrid technologies such as Lasseter and Lopes.
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.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon Web Services' IPR against Ziklag IP regarding patent 6182128, allowing the review to proceed.
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.
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.