IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 53 of 140 · 4,175 total
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information, separate from the public patent file.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power’s generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings as to those parties. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA's automobile insurance patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,159,310 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties argue that termination aligns with statutory policy and practice.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power have settled their IPR dispute over a generator fuel regulator patent. They jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access and notify the parties of any third‑party requests.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Prajna Generics Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds and their uses. The Court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises, obtain accounts, and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, owners/licensees of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering Ruxolitinib compounds (used in treating Mye), filed a suit against Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize samples of the infringing drug, and gather evidence.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr. v.Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'
LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V. v.Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Respondent
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Discord Netherlands B.V., Discord Inc. v.Respondent
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC_CFI_761/2024 ACT 63992/2024 ACT .24515/2025 Ordinanza Del Tribunale unificato dei Brevetti di primo grado adottata in data 29.7. 2025 KEYWORDS Rule 150 – Separato procedimento per i costi della decisione ROP; Rule 353 – Rettifica delle decisioni e d
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter, LLC challenges Yondr’s ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over earlier locking‑case references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a PTAB petition seeking cancellation of Yondr’s lockable‑case patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over earlier security‑case publications. The petition lists seven claims and three statutory grounds.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter and Yondr settled their post‑grant review dispute over patent 12,133,078. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
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.