IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 88 of 189 · 5,670 total
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Aesculap AG, as applicant, sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The presiding judge issued indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, including a proposed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 relating to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.
Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Pi‑Design’s French‑press patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art coffee‑maker references.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 video‑coding patent, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Kim and Adolph.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.