IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 83 of 140 · 4,175 total
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The PTAB denied Empower Clinic Services' request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025‑01024, which challenges Eli Lilly's patent 9,474,780. The institution remains denied, ending the challenge.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of its discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00975 and related cases. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the challenges.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v.Respondent
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V. (defendant)
This order rectifies a clerical error in a prior revocation decision concerning European patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The earlier decision had incorrectly referenced the patent as EP 1 994 067 B1 throughout its text. The Court corrected the patent number on its own motion, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and several healthcare distributors. The order addresses an application by Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether 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.