IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 93 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others
The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)
The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision in a patent revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court confirmed its prior reasoning that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not suitable for a decision on the merits, and therefore does not require a separate decision on costs. The Court held that such costs can be claimed and assessed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation proceedings that concluded with the default decision.
Scandit Inc, Scandit AG v.Respondent
Hand Held Products Inc. brought an infringement action against Scandit AG and Scandit Inc. concerning European Patent EP4163816, and Scandit filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before substantive adjudication, the parties reached a settlement and both filed applications to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Division in The Hague granted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by each claimant.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an application for a cost decision against Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, seeking reimbursement of EUR 112,300.00. The respondents objected to the amount, certain travel expenses, and requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal against the decision on the merits. The Court rejected the request for a stay, holding that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not justify suspending cost proceedings, as this would allow the unsuccessful party to indefinitely delay cost decisions.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
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.