IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 47 of 189 · 5,670 total
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Tritech Software Systems seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Carbyne’s IPR, arguing the petition is deficient due to inconsistent claim constructions across forums.
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.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Tritech Software Systems’ Director Review request to overturn the institution of an IPR. The petitioner asserts the request is procedurally barred and that the patent owner’s reliance on its own prosecution statements is proper.
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.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for a director review of the institution decisions in two IPRs (patents 9,940,972 and 10,218,954) filed against Cellular South, Inc.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' ’722 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references covering real‑time data updates and routing networks.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2‑4 and 11 of U.S. Patent 10,218,995, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of the ’303 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Demircin and Kimoto references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz seeks cancellation of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 9,493,149, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors favor institution.
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.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cellular South’s 10,218,954 patent covering video‑to‑data methods, asserting obviousness over Kritt, Fontana, and Lau references and noting no discretionary denial issues.
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.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP 2 661 133. Defendant 5 (Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) requested a unified deadline regime for all defendants, including a two-week extension of the reply and rejoinder deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs were still pending for several defendants.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA & IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., holder of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 concerning a robot localization method, filed an ex parte application for inspection and evidence preservation against Roborock (HK) Limited at the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The application sought to inspect Roborock's booth at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin to gather evidence of alleged patent infringement by Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners. The court granted the order, finding that the trade fair inspection was the applicant's only realistic opportunity to obtain evidence, given that Roborock operates from Hong Kong without a German establishment.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. to provide security for costs in the amount of €100,000 to MediaTek Germany GmbH within six weeks. The court found that, as Huawei is domiciled in China (outside the EU/EEA), enforcement of a cost decision would be significantly more difficult, justifying the requirement for security. The amount was set at half of the €200,000 statutory ceiling for reimbursable costs, since the other defendant, MediaTek, Inc., had not yet been served and was not participating in the proceedings.
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.