IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 89 of 189 · 5,670 total
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution for several IPR petitions filed by Snap Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy, meaning no trial will proceed.
Kausal Goyal And & Ors. v.Awadh Oils Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Awadh Goyal
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse ex-parte interim injunction against Kausal Goyal and others in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'Kala Ghoda'. The court found that the Appellants had established a prima facie case, particularly citing a family settlement agreement and long-standing use of the trademark. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full hearing, preventing immediate prejudice to the appellants.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected oppositions filed by the defendants challenging its jurisdiction in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court held that the plaintiff could supplementarily rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in response to the opposition, even though the original complaint cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ extends jurisdiction to persons who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state. The court found jurisdiction established based on alleged infringing acts in Germany and the involvement of Defendant 5 (Flextronics) as a logistics service provider, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The defendants filed objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the jurisdiction of the Local Chamber Munich. The court rejected the objections, holding that the plaintiff could additionally rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ even though it had originally cited only Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that jurisdiction was established based on the alleged infringing activities of the defendants in Germany.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP filed by Ericsson regarding the confidentiality regime for its licensing documents in patent infringement proceedings involving EP3076673. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to prevent Asustek's employees from accessing sensitive licensing data involving Asustek's competitors. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence of an actual risk of antitrust violations, but granted leave to appeal to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, and Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 072. The defendants filed oppositions under Rule 19.1 RoP challenging the jurisdiction of the Munich Local Chamber. The court rejected the oppositions, holding that the plaintiff could rely on Art. 33(1)(a) EPGÜ in addition to Art. 33(1)(b) EPGÜ, and that Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 EPGÜ constitutes an extension of jurisdiction to defendants who neither committed infringement nor have their seat in the relevant contracting member state.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
Anordnung
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Viant Technology and LiveIntent petition PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's 2015 ad‑targeting patent, arguing obviousness over Burdick and a Burdick‑Grannan combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
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.