IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 53 of 189 · 5,670 total
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while Generac Power Systems continues as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential, limiting access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, contending that the prior art never teaches the claimed ‘unlock’ function and that Samsung’s expert testimony is conclusory.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate W&Wsens' 12,243,948 patent covering microstructured photodetectors, asserting obviousness over Kuboi, Vasylyev and Shinohara and lack of enablement.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Meridian International’s ’946 patent covering a stackable storage box with a stop‑part mechanism. The petitioner alleges the invention is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Li and Baruch. The Board is asked to institute the trial and invalidate the patent.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate Meridian International’s ’689 patent covering a stackable storage system, asserting anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art latch references.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners seek IPR on Champion’s dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over DuroMax, DeVries, Nakafushi, Olmr and Fujisawa. They also dispute the patent owner’s claim construction of the selector switch.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’228 patent covering biometric unlock and communication between a smartwatch and smartphone, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on six grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining Aminzade with Sowers, Soli, Hong, and Altman.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Ginko’s U.S. Pat. 11,025,573, asserting obviousness over the Robertson and Ahuja prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims to nullify Ginko’s infringement allegations.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,735,320, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art MPLS technologies disclosed in Murphy, Taguchi, and Booth. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01462 after a merits review, finding the petitioner met the legal threshold. The notice also detailed multiple discretionary and non-discretionary denials across various proceedings.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01461 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Ginko LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Board found insufficient evidence that cited prior art disclosed the claimed contact permission settings.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01388 after determining the petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional reviews.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01364 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board denied institution of IPR2025-01313 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01309 and related cases after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This moves the proceedings forward to trial phase.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG and Others (EP 1 697 604)
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
Nokia of America has filed an inter partes review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of SPADA Innovations' ’142 patent, asserting that the claimed PON‑VRF combination is obvious over prior‑art standards and publications.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has petitioned the PTAB to cancel three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid generation patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references. The petition details claim constructions and shows overlapping component ratios with the references.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑3 under §§ 102 and 103.
Liberty Energy Services LLC et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 9‑13 of Dynamic Mesh Networks' U.S. Patent 7,885,243, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art mesh networking references.
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
The USPTO Board denied institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings, including IPR2025-01442, citing failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.