IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 34 of 189 · 5,670 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.
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.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00642, arguing that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights. The petition contends the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied “settled expectations.”
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.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a petition asking the USPTO Director to rehear the denial of institution for several IPRs targeting iCashe’s patent. The request challenges the Director’s discretionary denial under § 314(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.
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.
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.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sciencons’ 603 patent covering a radioisotope generator for targeted alpha‑therapy, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement. The petition seeks cancellation of all 20 claims.
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.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for IPR against iCashe’s 9,208,423 patent covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on Doughty, Bursch and Fox references to argue obviousness under §103 and contends that discretionary denial does not apply.
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.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s ’156 patent covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. The petition relies on Doughty and Fox as prior art and argues that the examiner failed to consider these references, making the claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate iCashe’s 8,403,219 patent covering smartcard integration in mobile phones. The petition relies on the Fox and Takekawa references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
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.
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.