IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 83 of 189 · 5,670 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC & Others
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding cross-applications for security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could also seek security for costs related to those counterclaims under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes's European patent EP 2 196 231 before the Central Division Paris, which was dismissed with costs awarded against Tandem Diabetes. After Tandem Diabetes appealed, the parties settled the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal confirmed the settlement on 3 June 2025. Tandem Diabetes then applied for reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, which the Court of Appeal granted because the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed the appellant to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Brussels that had dismissed its infringement claims concerning European patent 2 331 036. The court held that the appellant, as the unsuccessful party in the appeal, must bear the reasonable and proportionate costs of the appeal proceedings incurred by OrthoApnea, but declared inadmissible both OrthoApnea's request for a specific cost amount of €2,693.33 and the appellant's request to resume the pending cost procedure at the Local Division Brussels.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who are plaintiffs in counterclaims for revocation may also request security for costs related to those counterclaims. The plaintiff's request for security from the defendants was denied, while the defendants' requests were partially granted, with the plaintiff ordered to provide EUR 200,000 in security to defendants 1-3 and EUR 100,000 to defendant 5.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre's appeal against a cost determination order of the Local Division Munich. The court held that the general cost determination procedure under R. 150 ff. RoP applies to cost decisions following withdrawal of an application under R. 265 RoP, and that on appeal, review is limited to a marginal check of whether the awarded costs are reasonable and proportionate under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation could claim security for costs related to those counterclaims, and ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting the plaintiff's own request for security from the defendants.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court held that a defendant in an infringement suit who files a counterclaim for revocation may seek security for costs related to that counterclaim under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP. The court ordered the plaintiff Headwater Research LLC to provide security of EUR 200,000 to the Motorola defendants and EUR 100,000 to Flextronics, while rejecting Headwater's request for security from the defendants.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,119,463 filed by Ascend Elements against Duesenfeld GmbH.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme‑based contraceptive patent, arguing that the claims lack sufficient written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the vast, undefined genus of modified PH20 polypeptides and the impossibility of testing all variants.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Interstellar Inc. submits a response urging the PTAB to deny Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00696. The owner contends the Director’s discretion is broad, there is no six‑year bright‑line rule for settled expectations, and the petitioner’s arguments are repetitive and unsupported.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB institution decision, arguing the filing is timely and requesting correction of the document type and fee payment assistance.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPR institution decisions after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity issues in district court. The parties may file brief arguments, and the proceedings are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied AMD and Pensando's request for rehearing of a Director discretionary denial in IPR2025-00478 concerning patent 8,924,596. The order affirms the original decision without further review.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Duesenfeld’s battery‑recycling patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim language.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,049,652 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of key mutants. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
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.