IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 95 of 189 · 5,670 total
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's 8,198,686 patent, asserting obviousness over Aoyama, Akasaka, and Hsu823 prior art.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging fourteen claims of the ’180 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric MOSFET structures. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over several pre‑2005 publications, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 11,826,217 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents by Nguyen, Black, and Hirsch. The petition requests institution and cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 13‑23.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its Indian affiliate petition PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Breckenridge’s 2021 dabigatran composition patent, arguing obviousness over Brauns combined with Leane or Sugimoto.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of the ’076 high‑k gate dielectric patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of U.S. Patent 8,907,425, which covers stress‑relief structures for MISFETs. The petitioner asserts that combinations of known prior‑art references make the claims obvious under §103. No claim construction is required, and the petition seeks institution of the review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all twenty claims of Fractus’s ’200 antenna patent, citing obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑related features. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied institution for multiple IPR petitions filed by Union Electric Company et al. against MES, Inc., preventing a trial from taking place.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Fractus's patent covering antenna design/MFWD technology. Petitioner Geotab Inc. et al. asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), challenging 20 claims based on prior art including Dou, Jing, and Baliarda-543. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, moving forward with the trial preparation phase.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner in its challenge to patent 11031677, which covers multifunction wireless devices and antenna design. The grounds included anticipation (103) and written description/enablement issues related to prior art like Baliarda-543.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikas Pal And Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Delhi High Court, Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sought various reliefs, including permanent injunctions and damages against Vikas Pal and others. The court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the case's progression. Crucially, the court granted the Plaintiff liberty to file necessary additional documents within three weeks, allowing the litigation process to move forward while addressing procedural requirements.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation filed an application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred in proceedings for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the application, holding that invoices from Insulet's law firm could be protected as confidential but the internal breakdown of costs and billable hours could not, and that the confidentiality club must include at least one natural person from each party.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns Insulet Corporation's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality over attorney fees and expenses incurred in proceedings against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to a preliminary injunction concerning European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the confidentiality request, holding that while litigation costs are not inherently confidential, invoices showing a patent owner's interest in defending its patent can be protected. The Court rejected Insulet's attempt to exclude EOFLOW's natural person from the confidentiality club, ordering that the unredacted exhibits be accessible to EOFLOW's legal representatives and its CEO Jesse Kim.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their post‑grant review of patent 12,056,736 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before instituting trial and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review of Home Depot’s geofencing patent (U.S. 12,056,736). The Board authorized the filing of the motion, ending the proceeding before any merits were decided.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr, Inc. filed a preliminary response to an IPR petition by Be Smarter, LLC, arguing that the cited prior art (Samuel, Shin, Simpson) does not anticipate or render obvious the ’788 patent claims and requesting denial of institution.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic and Optoma's IPR on its expired projector patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution wasteful and duplicative.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00888 and related cases, upholding the original decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.
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.