IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 189 · 5,670 total
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the decision to deny institution of two IPRs against SoundClear Technologies’ patent 9,031,259. The order leaves the institution denial in place.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00344, leaving the institution decision unchanged.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks Director Review of its IPR challenges to SoundClear’s patent, prompting a brief response window for the patent owner.
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.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 12,115,166 patent covering a broad genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists for CAH, arguing lack of written description and enablement.
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.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
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 36 claims of Headwater Research's ’510 patent covering automated credential porting for mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Salmela and Rishy-Maharaj publications.
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 and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified certain information contained in the defendants' opposition and related annexes as confidential under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure and restricted access to the unredacted versions to a limited number of identified persons on the claimants' side.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected objections filed by the defendants under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's international and territorial jurisdiction over alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1 in non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom). The court held that international jurisdiction was established under Article 31 UPCA, Article 71b(1), Article 4(1), and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation because all defendants are domiciled in Germany, and that Article 34 UPCA concerns the territorial scope of effects of decisions rather than jurisdiction.
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.
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.