IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 39 of 140 · 4,175 total
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
Blankenhorn GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a cost allocation dispute (Rule 360 RoP) between Faro Technologies, Inc. and Blankenhorn GmbH (Respondent 2) in proceedings concerning EP 4 001 835. The original proceedings involved an application for interim measures (injunction and sequestration) under Art. 62 EPGÜ against both PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (the manufacturer) and Blankenhorn GmbH (the German distributor), following alleged infringement observed at the 'Control' trade fair in Stuttgart on May 6, 2025. After Faro settled with PMT Technologies and Blankenhorn submitted a cease-and-desist declaration, Blankenhorn sought a ruling on cost allocation for the now-concluded proceedings between the two of them.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) concerning provisional measures under Rule 211 in a patent infringement dispute. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, both part of the Johnson & Johnson group, are the applicants seeking provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH in relation to European Patent EP 3 689 262, which protects a staple cartridge for medical stapling devices. The patent, granted on 8 November 2023 with unitary effect registered on 15 April 2024, is a divisional of EP 2 621 360 B1, against which no opposition was filed.
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED v.MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 651 838, titled 'Glazing System,' owned by City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, an Indian company. The patent, which expired on 14 July 2024, related to a self-locking glazing mechanism using aluminium profiles and grooved rubber beading. The proceedings involved both an infringement action by City Glass against several Maars entities and a counterclaim by the Maars parties. The decision, delivered on 29 August 2025, addressed issues relating to the expired patent, a final cost decision, and a security deposit under Rule 3(c) UPCA.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against HBCU Messaging’s messaging patent was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing procedural rules and claim‑construction inconsistencies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.
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.