IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 70 of 140 · 4,175 total
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, relating to a cutting tool of a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The presiding judge, acting as rapporteur, set out the intended feature breakdown (Merkmalsgliederung) of patent claim 1 to be used as the basis for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025. The order also referenced a Court of Appeal decision from April 30, 2025 (Insulet v. EOFlow) regarding the scope of information sought by the applicant.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 137 782. Plant-e had initiated infringement proceedings against Arkyne before The Hague Local Division, and Arkyne had filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the Local Division found infringement and rejected the revocation counterclaim, Arkyne appealed. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm the settlement, keep its contents confidential, and Arkyne additionally sought reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Kausal Goyal And & Ors. v.Awadh Oils Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Awadh Goyal
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse ex-parte interim injunction against Kausal Goyal and others in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'Kala Ghoda'. The court found that the Appellants had established a prima facie case, particularly citing a family settlement agreement and long-standing use of the trademark. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full hearing, preventing immediate prejudice to the appellants.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
This decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola entities and Flextronics International Europe B.V. regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The ruling addresses procedural objections raised under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying that a plaintiff may rely on additional jurisdictional bases beyond those initially cited in the statement of claim or in response to an objection. The Court further clarified the scope of Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement, holding that it does not refer to Art. 33(1)(a) and does not impose special requirements for unified actions against multiple defendants who have all committed infringing acts or are domiciled in the relevant contracting member state.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.
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.