IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 37 of 189 · 5,670 total
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MOTORTECH filed an unopposed motion asking the PTAB to treat its settlement with Altronic as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the IPR record. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and seeks limited access to the settlement documents.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MotorTech and Altronic have settled their dispute, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the pending IPR on patent 7,401,603. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.
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.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’729 electric‑camera patent, arguing that all four claims are obvious over prior‑art cameras. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cites favorable discretionary‑denial factors.
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).
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully challenged Cleveland Medical Devices' sleep apnea monitoring patent via IPR, arguing the claims were obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution.
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.Samsung Electronics GmbH and Others
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.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. filed a PGR petition challenging four claims of Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting lack of written description, added matter, obviousness over multiple helmet references, and anticipation by Klein's 2019 news release.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 10,224,999, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references.
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.
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 et al.
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.
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.