IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 37 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Dacia S.A., Renault Deutschland AG, Renault S.A.S. v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Hamburg granted a procedural application by the Renault/Dacia Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Avago Technologies concerning European patent EP3720095. The Claimant did not object to the application, and the Court relied on the reasoning of a prior order dated 3 July 2025 between the same Claimant and three of the present Defendants. The Court ordered that the language of proceedings be English, the language in which the patent was granted, and that no specific translation or interpretation arrangements would be required.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by the Defendants (Renault entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on EP3651429. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The court considered the fairness grounds and relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP, referring to a previous order between the same Claimant and three of the Defendants.
Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants, Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, to stay both infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. EP 3 821 580 pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The defendants argued that a preliminary EPO opinion indicating added matter made revocation highly likely. The claimant, Centripetal Limited, opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that the UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, finding it preferable to proceed with the hearing as planned to avoid conflicting decisions.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, but prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court allowed both withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was required as the parties agreed to bear their own costs.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim. All 15 claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent‑assertion firm Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025‑00986 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes, ending the proceeding before it was instituted.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. sought a rehearing of the Director Review in IPR2025-00959, but the USPTO denied the request. The decision leaves the original patent enforcement order in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all court deadlines for 45 days to finalize the agreement and file dismissal papers.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne’s request to rehear the PTAB Director’s decision de‑instituting its IPR is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the request merely repeats already‑rejected arguments and violates rehearing standards. The response cites the Revvo and Tesla precedents to support the denial of the rehearing.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 26 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN caching patent. The petition relies on obviousness over Kenner and on combinations with Vetter, Rekimoto, and Boyles, and also challenges claim 28 under §112. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.
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.