IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 95 of 140 · 4,175 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v.Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar filed a suit seeking recognition of copyright and injunction against Mr. A.R. Rahman and others regarding the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti'. The plaintiff alleged that his ancestral work was being used in the song 'Veera Raja Veera' without proper attribution or authorization. The Delhi High Court, while addressing an interim application, found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. Consequently, the court directed mandatory changes to credit slides on online platforms and ordered a substantial deposit from the defendants.
Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Court decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
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.