IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 78 of 140 · 4,175 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Astral Limited v.Mahavir Electric And Hardware Stores
Astral Limited filed a suit against Mahavir Electric & Hardware Stores and Vikram Traders for infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademark 'ASTRAL'. The court found that the defendants were adopting and using an identical trademark on counterfeit pipes and fittings, violating Astral's exclusive rights.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark infringement issues concerning Montblanc's brand. While the court previously extended an interim injunction to prevent the use of a newly identified fraudulent domain, it ultimately de-reserved the final judgments in the core suit. This indicates that while immediate injunctive relief is maintained against new infringers, the matter will proceed towards a full trial to determine damages and resolve the main claims.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This case concerned an appeal and cross-appeal against an order of the Local Division Munich dated December 17, 2024, regarding coercive fines imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information obligation under Article 67(1) EPGÜ. The Court of Appeal addressed five key legal questions relating to the setting of deadlines for providing information, the imposition of coercive fines even after belated compliance, the burden of proof regarding compliance, the scope of required disclosures (including manufacturer prices), and the permissible form of the information. The Court issued five guiding principles clarifying the procedural framework for enforcing information orders and the conditions for imposing coercive fines.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech INC., F.Hoffmann – La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shangai Henlius Biotech INC
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
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.