IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 55 of 140 · 4,175 total
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
This decision by the Local Division Brussels addresses a costs procedure under Rule 156 RoP concerning the recovery of representation costs. The court clarified the burden of proof regarding claimed costs, the timing for requests to adjust the recoverable costs ceiling, and the scope of recoverable representation costs. The ruling establishes that claimants bear the burden of proving their claimed costs and must submit supporting evidence, while the court retains discretion to apply the cost ceiling as a safety net based on equity considerations.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE and the counterclaim for revocation filed by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG jointly. The decision was made before the close of the written proceedings for reasons of procedural economy and to allow early assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR against the ’013 single‑cell sequencing patent resulted in the Board finding all 28 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior publications by Linnarsson and McCloskey. The petition’s obviousness arguments were accepted and the patent owner’s defenses were rejected.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB found Samsung’s challenge successful for 11 of the 15 claims of Maxell’s ’815 patent, deeming them obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while four claims remained upheld.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung’s inter partes review of Maxell’s 11,017,815 B2 video‑profile patent ended with the PTAB finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable, preserving Samsung’s product roadmap.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Meta Platforms' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01333, leaving the original decision that the IPR was not instituted unchanged.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 27 claims of a dual‑damascene interconnect patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds for each claim group and requests the Board to institute the review.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’897 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based exploit prediction.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01307 involving Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Jaishankar
The plaintiff, Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., claimed that its registered trademark 'HANS CHAAP' was being infringed and passed off by the defendants in relation to tobacco products. Despite initial interim injunctions, the suit proceeded despite non-appearance of several defendants. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants 2 to 5 and awarding costs.
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.