IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 76 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Bootler’s ’683 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and that the prior art was not cited during prosecution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter petitions the PTAB to invalidate Yondr's ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, citing prior art that anticipates and renders the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited
The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, ***
This appeal concerned the composition of the Court when adjudicating on a request for the imposition of periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that such a request must be adjudicated by a panel, not by a single judge. The appeal was brought by Hybridgenerator ApS against an order of the Copenhagen Local Division dated 3 March 2025, which had declined to impose penalty payments on the Respondents in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 238 202.
Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Sweden AB, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech UK Limi 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 issued on 04/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 Cambridge
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, asserting that fifteen claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Levesque, Ronzani, Fager and Ohshima.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC regarding augmented reality and location-based gaming claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani, setting the stage for trial.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor
The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 643 717, in which the plaintiff Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. sued defendant Yunex GmbH. Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd applied to intervene in support of the defendant's request to dismiss the infringement claim. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant objected to the intervention, and the presiding judge granted the intervention application, rendering the prior invitation to intervene moot.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal by Tandem Diabetes against a decision of the Central Division Paris dated 18 December 2024, which had dismissed their revocation action concerning EP 2 196 231 (a patent relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion) and ordered Tandem Diabetes to bear the costs. Following the filing of the appeal, the parties informed the Court of Appeal that they had concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement pursuant to Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) has filed an IPR petition challenging Feit Electric’s 8,614,539 patent covering white‑light LED devices with TiO diffusing layers, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s IPR petition against patent number 10367138 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under Section 103 grounds.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Feit Electric Company, Inc., challenging 14 claims of patent 8614539. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed LED device components are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
Anil Jain v.Rajan Bhutani
The plaintiff, trading as Mahavira Tractors, filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'REAL DIAMOND' (registered mark) versus 'STAR DIAMONDS' (defendant's mark) used for Mechanical Seals. The court found that the marks were not deceptively similar and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262A RoP of the Rules of Procedure. The information in question was previously ordered to be provided to the claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) by a decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 11 March 2025. The defendants argue that the information contains highly confidential business secrets and have simultaneously lodged an appeal seeking suspensive effect. The claimant opposes the confidentiality request, seeking either dismissal of the request or, alternatively, broader access to the unredacted exhibits for additional named employees.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning a preliminary objection (R. 19 RoP) regarding the competence of the Court under the UPC Agreement. The dispute centers on whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear claims relating to acts of infringement that occurred before the entry into force of the UPCA, and the effect of an opt-out and subsequent withdrawal on the Court's competence. The appellants (XSYS entities) challenged the competence of the Court, while the respondent (Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH) argued that the UPC has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal addressed the temporal scope of Art. 32(1) UPCA, the transitional regime under Art. 83 UPCA, and the implications of opt-out withdrawals.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure in relation to one of two patents at issue. Dainese S.p.A. had filed an infringement action against Alpinestars and other defendants concerning EP '117 and EP '364, with counterclaims for revocation filed against both patents. Following an EPO Board of Appeal decision maintaining EP '117 in amended form, Dainese withdrew its infringement claims regarding EP '117, leaving only the revocation counterclaim pending. The Court held that when all parties jointly request a stay under Rule 295(d), the Court has no discretion and must order the stay, and granted the stay solely in respect of EP '117 while allowing proceedings concerning EP '364 to continue.
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.