IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 58 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 202117018914. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal due to an inadvertent error in filing.
Haveli Restaurants And Resorts Ltd. v.Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd. challenging the rejection of its opposition against a trademark application for 'AMRITSARI HAVELI.' The core issue was whether the Appellant was properly served with the Counter Statement, leading to the Opposition being deemed abandoned. While the court allowed applications related to delay and record summoning, it proceeded to issue notice for written submissions on the main appeal, indicating that the matter is moving toward a substantive hearing.
Asif Ahmad Najar v.Yasir Farooq Shirgugurie & Anr.
Asif Ahmad Najar filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an existing trademark registration held by Respondent No. 1, which bears the name 'Baker's Hub'. The petitioner also sought a declaration establishing his prior and rightful use of the mark. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their replies within four weeks, setting the matter for further hearing in November 2025.
M/S Nature Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
M/S Nature Magic World challenged the Registrar of Trademarks' failure to recognize a Deed of Assignment that transferred two trademarks, 'COLORESSENCE' and 'COLORESSENCE eyes spy', to them. The Petitioner argued that despite the assignment, the records incorrectly showed the predecessor company as the owner. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar to consider the Petitioner's representations for correcting the ownership status within four weeks, taking into account a no-objection from the original proprietor.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.
Lacoste S.A. v.Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited and others for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to its trademark LACOSTE and associated labels. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using identical or deceptively similar marks on goods like tags, buttons, and packaging materials. The court decreed the suit in favor of Lacoste.
UPC Decision UPC-000540 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This procedural order concerns two related revocation cases before the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, involving European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed procedural matters following an interim conference, including an opposition filed by bioMérieux France, confirmation of exhibits, and the management of an excessive number of invalidity attacks. The court directed bioMérieux to narrow its inventive step attacks and focus on specific added matter arguments, while structuring the upcoming oral hearing and setting deadlines for further submissions.
UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
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.