IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 73 of 189 · 5,670 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
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 have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,917,367, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
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
A statistical study of 2021 IPR final written decisions shows that patents deemed unpatentable typically have extensive prior‑art citations and often rely on new prior art and expert testimony introduced during the proceeding.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR challenge against XiFi Networks' patent 12169756 involving Samsung Electronics, allowing the review to proceed despite a stay.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.
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.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
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 UK Limited, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) on 18 July 2025, following an interim conference in two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The order addresses procedural matters including the narrowing of invalidity attacks, structuring of the oral hearing, and setting deadlines for further submissions by the parties.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
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 and bioMérieux SA et al. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) in revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. Following an interim conference, the court directed bioMérieux to narrow down its approximately 50 invalidity attacks and 16 prior art citations to a manageable number, particularly focusing on Auxiliary Requests 1, 2, and 3, and ordered both parties to provide specific submissions and cost estimates by set deadlines.
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.
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.