IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 73 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s obviousness challenge succeeded, finding all 19 claims of Valtrus’s ’764 patent unpatentable over the Li and Edlund prior‑art references. The decision also denied Google’s motion to exclude exhibits and granted motions to seal.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s ’967 patent covering redundant power supplies. The petition relies on anticipation by Zak and obviousness over Susong, Chang, and Edelen, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01042, allowing Solventum Corporation to challenge Wound Healing Technologies Corp.'s patent 10639404 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.'s patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness regarding light fixture sealing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the '373 patent is unpatentable based on prior art reference Jurik.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Fena Private Limited v.Bajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.
ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna, Inc., v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. (Applicant) - 325 Binney Street - M
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.
M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to accept and process a renewal application for the mark 'NATURE'S WEALTH RESTORES HEALTH.' The court held that as long as the trade mark has not been formally removed from the register, the proprietor is entitled to seek renewal, setting aside the rejection order issued by the Registry. This decision provides crucial protection against administrative hurdles preventing legitimate trademark renewals.
M/S. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr v.The Additional Commissioner
Court decision.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks cancellation of all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’454 patent, asserting obviousness over Amidon and the Wong‑Gogic combination. The petition includes a supporting expert declaration and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The PTAB found all ten claims (12‑21) unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all twenty claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The decision finalizes the IPR with a sweeping cancellation.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
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.