IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 35 of 189 · 5,670 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of juicers and registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 (relating to a juice extractor), sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for patent infringement regarding the 'AUTO10' slow juicer sold under the 'Kuvings' brand. The Local Division Mannheim separated the proceedings concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom pending the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Following that decision, the court held that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, ordering damages and an information/accounting obligation.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd. sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor, concerning NUC's slow juicer marketed as 'AUTO10'. The proceedings were separated from the main action to address the national parts of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Polish, Spanish, and UK national parts of the patent.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court revoked an ex-parte Saisie (evidence preservation) order that had been issued in favor of Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. concerning EP 3 281 580. The court found that the inspection had been executed against a separate legal entity (Palo Alto Networks (Germany) GmbH) rather than against the named Defendant, and that the Applicant had breached its duty of candor by failing to inform the court of this material change in circumstances.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
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 Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerned Centripetal Limited's application for a penalty order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for alleged non-compliance with a saisie (inspection) order related to European Patent EP 3 281 580. The court rejected the request, finding that Palo Alto was under no obligation to actively set up access rights or bring hardware to the Munich premises, as the inspection order only covered what was physically present at the specified location. The panel confirmed the Judge-rapporteur's order and denied leave to appeal.
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
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and withdrawing pending review requests.
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.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review, defending the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution and arguing the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper and lawful.
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.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on patent 9,609,510. The petition alleges due‑process violations, APA breaches, and unconstitutional discretionary denial practices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00483, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory deadlines.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the earlier decision that refused to institute an IPR against Cerence’s patent 7,680,334. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
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
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.
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 has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.
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.