IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Security First Innovations’ ’456 patent covering all‑or‑nothing encryption and data sharding. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art systems by Torre, Desai, Watanabe and Orsini.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Security First Innovations’ data‑storage patent, asserting obviousness over Dickinson, Hardjono and Moulton references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian's 11,544,183 patent covering flash memory controllers. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks review of 14 claims.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
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 has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑18 of Wilus’s Wi‑Fi multi‑user uplink patent, arguing obviousness over Kim, Chu and Choi references and lack of written‑description support. The petition requests institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Wilus Institute's patent 11716171, challenging claims 1-16 based on obviousness over Kim and Chu/Choi. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung could prove unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Nederland N.V., Renault S.A.S., and Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application by the Defendants (Renault group entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action based on EP3720095. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The Court granted the request, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l.
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 Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Nederland N.V. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
The President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC ordered the language of proceedings in an infringement action concerning EP3651429 to be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The application was made by three Renault defendants under Rule 323 RoP, and the claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object. The Court relied on the reasoning of a prior order dated 3 July 2025 issued in a parallel action between the same claimant and three of the defendants.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
The defendants (Keysight) applied to stay UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 821 580 pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings, citing a preliminary EPO opinion finding added matter. The claimant (Centripetal) opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, holding that the case was ripe for a full hearing and that the UPC decision would likely be issued before the EPO's reasoned decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc. and Others
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.
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.