IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 140 · 4,175 total
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery separator patent by alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR under Section 325(d).
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
Motortech has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 7,401,603 covering capacitive discharge ignition systems. The petition argues obviousness over a 1992 research disclosure combined with prior patents Grather and Lepley‑I, and disputes any discretionary denial.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 15‑29 of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’333 patent covering networked CPAP therapy. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references Toge, Kumar, Norman and Burton. No secondary considerations are offered and the Board is asked to institute the review.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of HydraFacial's microdermabrasion console patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner never considered the cited combinations and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’029 PAP‑therapy patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art PAP devices and telemedicine systems.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in its IPR against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that the petitioner adequately showed Murakami discloses key features and that combinations with Beard and Akiike were motivated and predictable.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices regarding a patent covering sleep disorder treatment/CPAP systems. The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 1-3, which centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement proceedings were initiated by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL concerning EP 4 074 373 before the Hamburg Local Division. The parties subsequently concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement, keep its details confidential, and refrain from issuing a cost decision. The Court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365.1 RoP, ordered that only the redacted version be entered in the register, and declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s 2018 stylus patent, asserting that its tilt‑detection claims are obvious over prior‑art Yoshida combined with either Ikeda or Iguchi. The petition lists two 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds covering 21 claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑driving patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art machine‑learning patents and that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01573 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Anita Rajesh Upadhyay v.Automark Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court partially allowed a writ petition challenging an order that appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the original application lacked proper foundation, was filed long after the injunction, and contained arbitrary directions regarding premises searches. While quashing the impugned order, the High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the defendant's objections regarding the commissioner's appointment.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. o.a.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against five Samsung entities before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Before the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost decision. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the value in dispute at €2,000,000, and directed the Registrar to reimburse 60% of the court fees paid.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s ’337 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura and Kristjansson anticipate or make obvious the claimed voice‑controlled device features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Massively Broadband's U.S. Patent 8,923,754, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, and Perlman.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.
Suresh Gulwani and Others v.M/S Dammani Brothers Through Partner Shri Rajendra Dammani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a stay on an earlier Commercial Court order that had restricted the manufacturing, selling, and advertising activities under the 'SWAD GOLD' trademark. The petitioners argued that the restriction was causing immediate irreparable business loss, halting their entire operations and preventing them from selling existing stock. Given the prima facie case of injury, the High Court decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order until further hearing.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which relates to Janus Kinase Inhibitors. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect premises and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, in which Headwater Research LLC had initially brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1. Before the appeal period expired, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA a.o.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division summoning the parties to an oral hearing in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The order sets the hearing date for 27 November 2025 and closes the written procedure by 7 November 2025, with no interim conference currently planned.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under §112.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑measurement patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, modulation, and AI‑driven analysis.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 27 claims of Omni MedSci’s ’304 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art publications. The petition focuses on the device’s carrier structure and the angled AWG surface.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.
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.