IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 77 of 140 · 4,175 total
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought an action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The court issued a decision confirming a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and defendants 1) and 2) (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering confidential treatment of the settlement details and basing the cost decision on the settlement provisions.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S, Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288, following an interim video hearing held on May 28, 2025. The dispute involves infringement claims by Heraeus against Vibrantz and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the consolidation of formal requests, the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany, and the handling of late defendant submissions on factual and legal issues.
Versah LLC v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Versah LLC regarding European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew its claims against the second defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, following an out-of-court settlement. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs, and the court formally approved the partial withdrawal and terminated the proceedings against that defendant.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, Lionra Technologies Ltd., for retroactive extension of time limits under Rule 9.3(a) RoP, alternatively for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, after missing the deadline under Rule 151 RoP for filing a cost submission application. The plaintiff argued that an experienced legal assistant from the litigation secretariat of its representative's law firm overlooked and failed to note the deadline, despite it being listed in a deadline overview specifically maintained for UPC proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the legal question of whether a missed deadline can only be remedied by an application for reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP, which takes precedence over Rule 9.3 RoP, and clarified the autonomous interpretation of the standard of care required under Rule 320.1 RoP.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 9,107,324, citing a settlement agreement and good cause under PTAB precedent. The motion seeks to end the pre‑institution proceeding to conserve resources.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 9,922,348. The denial leaves the earlier institution outcomes unchanged.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and that parallel district‑court litigation makes the IPR redundant. The request urges termination of the proceeding under § 314.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks to block Stratasys’s request for a Director Review of an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,569,466. The petitioner argues the referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that the broad stipulation eliminates any parallel district‑court litigation. The Board is urged to deny the review request.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
M/S Applesoft v.The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Secretary to Government, Department of Information Technology
M/S Applesoft filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff claimed breach of an implied contract by Defendant No. 1 (C-DAC) related to free distribution of Tamil language software. The High Court upheld the dismissal, primarily finding that the Bengaluru Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential while seeking to terminate the IPR over patent 9,045,101.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
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.