IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 71 of 140 · 4,175 total
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Rspl Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/06/2025 REQUERANT – DEFENDEUR AU PRINCIPAL GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 Memmingen DE Représenté par Frédéric PORTAL REPONDANT – DEM
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Mr.Sampath G.V. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sampath G.V., allowing him to renew his trademark 'THE VELLORE KITCHEN DEVICE' despite alleged failures in notification by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court held that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register, the petitioner was entitled to renewal subject to fees. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to facilitate the renewal process within 30 days.
R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns a procedural application filed by The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS based on European patent EP2080349. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed the admissibility of the application under Rule 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The ruling established that the position of all parties potentially affected by a requested language change must be heard before any decision is rendered under Rule 323 RoP.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The order addresses Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS)'s application for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, which the court found to be admissible and substantively successful.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 602 692. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main infringement action on June 5, 2025. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP, finding that ILME no longer had any legal interest in a decision on the appeal.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.SCHNELL S.p.A., AWM s.r.l.
This is a procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 5 June 2025 in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters, including the admissibility of a new version of auxiliary request AR4, which was referred to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing. The parties were also granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate the value of the infringement action, the value of the counterclaim for revocation, and the amount of recoverable costs.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
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.