IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 75 of 140 · 4,175 total
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR that it says misapplied written‑description law and improperly stripped the ‘200 patent’s priority claim. The dispute centers on the meaning of “4G communication standard” and whether the parent application supports the claimed antenna language.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over Dou, Ciais‑Quadband and Nakano references and lack of written description for 4G standards.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's 8,198,686 patent, asserting obviousness over Aoyama, Akasaka, and Hsu823 prior art.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its Indian affiliate petition PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Breckenridge’s 2021 dabigatran composition patent, arguing obviousness over Brauns combined with Leane or Sugimoto.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of U.S. Patent 8,907,425, which covers stress‑relief structures for MISFETs. The petitioner asserts that combinations of known prior‑art references make the claims obvious under §103. No claim construction is required, and the petition seeks institution of the review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all twenty claims of Fractus’s ’200 antenna patent, citing obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑related features. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Fractus's patent covering antenna design/MFWD technology. Petitioner Geotab Inc. et al. asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), challenging 20 claims based on prior art including Dou, Jing, and Baliarda-543. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, moving forward with the trial preparation phase.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner in its challenge to patent 11031677, which covers multifunction wireless devices and antenna design. The grounds included anticipation (103) and written description/enablement issues related to prior art like Baliarda-543.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikas Pal And Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Delhi High Court, Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sought various reliefs, including permanent injunctions and damages against Vikas Pal and others. The court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the case's progression. Crucially, the court granted the Plaintiff liberty to file necessary additional documents within three weeks, allowing the litigation process to move forward while addressing procedural requirements.
Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
In principle, the costs of the proceedings are not covered by confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP or by the attorney-client privilege unless they are specifically indicative of the company's financial capacity, its commercial strategy, or the importance of the patent as a corporate asset. Applying these principles, confidentiality as a general principle might also be granted to costs incurred by companies for legal services relating to litigation and patent protection, since this informatio
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their post‑grant review of patent 12,056,736 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before instituting trial and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review of Home Depot’s geofencing patent (U.S. 12,056,736). The Board authorized the filing of the motion, ending the proceeding before any merits were decided.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr, Inc. filed a preliminary response to an IPR petition by Be Smarter, LLC, arguing that the cited prior art (Samuel, Shin, Simpson) does not anticipate or render obvious the ’788 patent claims and requesting denial of institution.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic and Optoma's IPR on its expired projector patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution wasteful and duplicative.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution in an IPR concerning its LTE/5G patents, arguing the petitioner’s prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that there is no material examiner error.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO Director denied OnePlus's request for review of the denial to institute inter partes review against Pantech patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 84 claims of H2 Intellect’s U.S. Patent 12,056,736, alleging abstract‑idea ineligibility and obviousness over prior art. The petition relies on §101 and §103 grounds, citing Elliott, Jacob and Sakamoto references.
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.