IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 72 of 140 · 4,175 total
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Krish-V Facility Management Services Private Limited v.Krishvi Projects Private Limited
In a significant commercial appeal concerning trademark infringement and passing off, the Karnataka High Court overturned an earlier dismissal by the Trial Court. Krish-V Facility Management Services successfully argued that procedural errors led to them being placed ex-parte in the original suit filed by Krishvi Projects Private Limited. The High Court set aside the adverse order, allowing both parties a chance to present their full pleadings and evidence on the merits of the trademark dispute, while crucially maintaining the existing temporary injunction.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation v.M/s.TKP Pictures
The Madras High Court heard an appeal regarding the ownership and infringement of copyrights related to the film 'MALLU VETTY MINOR'. The court found that the petitioner, M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, was the absolute owner of the copyrights. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against Respondent No.1 (TKP Pictures) for infringing these rights.
Vmi Holland B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vmi Holland B.V. appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their patent application, titled "Assembly for and method of making a tyre component," on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The High Court found the rejection order to be arbitrary, devoid of reasons, and lacking proper adjudication on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject a patent application for a lamp lightning control circuit. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to address their submissions and ignored evidence, thus violating natural justice. The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s challenge to Valtrus’s 7,748,005 patent succeeded, finding all twenty claims unpatentable for lack of written‑description support and obviousness over the McCarthy application and Gien micro‑kernel reference.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google proved all 21 claims of Valtrus’s ’454 patent are obvious over Colby, Eilert, and Jindal, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination before the proceeding is instituted.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
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.