IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 74 of 189 · 5,670 total
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that blocked its IPR against MES’s ‘370 mercury‑removal patent. The petitioner contends the patent is invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds and cites multiple prior‑art references.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in five IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,933,370.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Birchtech Corp. submits an authorized response opposing Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied institution. The company argues the Director’s decision is final, the patent’s litigation history does not warrant reversal, and procedural requests are untimely or unsupported.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric requests Director Review of a Board denial, arguing the ‘430 mercury‑removal patent is invalid for lack of priority, written description, and obviousness. The petition cites extensive prior art and warns that settlements are being used to avoid a merits decision.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Capital One’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01325, keeping the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Birchtech Corp. opposes Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied IPR on its mercury‑control patent, arguing the Director’s decision is final and that joinder and stay requests are procedurally improper.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Wapp Tech successfully opposed Capital One’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR, arguing the petitioner misapplied statutory requirements and presented no valid procedural violations.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO denied Union Electric’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01323, keeping the institution decision intact.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
Reolink Innovation filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of its ’655 peer‑to‑peer searching system patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on five prior‑art publications. The petition enumerates eight grounds covering §§102 and 103, mapping each claim to the cited references.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
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.