IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 94 of 140 · 4,175 total
Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.Respondent
In an action for revocation, where both parties agreed to a stay, the appeal proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where the opposition proceedings could be expected to result in a final decision before or just after, in any case rapidly, in relation to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Asustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to certain confidential documents (referred to as 'Asustek Confidential Documents') in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European patent EP3076673. The Defendants sought to limit access to the unredacted versions of these documents to a defined circle of individuals, including the Claimant's authorized representatives, one private licensing/valuation expert, and one named natural person from the Claimant. The Claimant filed a response to the application, and the judge-rapporteur issued a preliminary order granting the Claimant time to file comments.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP2642632. The defendants sought to have the plaintiff's arguments regarding the patentability of auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A, raised in the reply to the patent amendment request, disregarded as late-filed under Rule 9.2 RoP. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that when auxiliary requests combine previously explained auxiliary requests, a reference to those earlier explanations in the patent amendment request is sufficient, and that merely deepening submissions in the reply does not constitute late filing.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc. , Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3953541, owned by Viking Arm AS, which initiated an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. The parties subsequently reached a mutual agreement to discontinue the proceedings, with Viking Arm withdrawing the infringement action and Stanley withdrawing the counterclaim for revocation.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal granted Nicoventures Trading Limited's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 430 921, which arose from a revocation action between Juul Labs International Inc. and NJOY Netherlands B.V. The Court found Nicoventures had a direct interest as a party to related validity proceedings. Access was granted subject to a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, until the appeal is concluded.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.Respondent
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
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.