IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 81 of 189 · 5,670 total
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings before the Milan Local Division. The Claimant, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the underlying figures. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the merits stage.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,012,252 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex and Credo settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 784/CHE/2012 for an 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1-D3, which were primarily related to four-wheeler vehicles. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Pankaj Yadav v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pankaj Yadav against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought intervention regarding alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by a third respondent manufacturing a similar product. However, the court found that the petitioner lacked an individual grievance or public interest standing to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, leading to the petition's dismissal.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of CText IP's messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Chang, Oh, and Stochosky. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.
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.