IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 96 of 189 · 5,670 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution in an IPR concerning its LTE/5G patents, arguing the petitioner’s prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that there is no material examiner error.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO Director denied OnePlus's request for review of the denial to institute inter partes review against Pantech patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving a Pantech patent. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but no new evidence is allowed. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 84 claims of H2 Intellect’s U.S. Patent 12,056,736, alleging abstract‑idea ineligibility and obviousness over prior art. The petition relies on §101 and §103 grounds, citing Elliott, Jacob and Sakamoto references.
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Bootler’s ’683 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and that the prior art was not cited during prosecution.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 7, and 8 of Maxell’s 7,159,988 projection‑optics patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter petitions the PTAB to invalidate Yondr's ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, citing prior art that anticipates and renders the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited
The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside a portion of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division concerning the imposition of periodic penalty payments, ruling that such a decision under R. 354.4 RoP must be made by a panel rather than a single judge. The case was referred back to the Local Division for adjudication as a panel on Hybridgenerator's request that periodic penalty payments be imposed on the Respondents for alleged non-compliance with an evidence preservation order.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This procedural order concerns applications by multiple Moderna entities seeking rectification of a prior Procedural Order dated 23 May 2025 regarding Preliminary Objections filed in two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) involving European patents EP2279254 and EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Moderna argued that the dates of service on Moderna Germany, Moderna Belgium, and Moderna Poland were incorrectly stated in the prior order, which affected the admissibility of their Preliminary Objections. The court found the applications founded, holding that the dates constituted clerical mistakes rectifiable under R.353 RoP, and rectified the order to confirm that the Preliminary Objections filed on 24 April 2025 were admissible for all defendants.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, asserting that fifteen claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Levesque, Ronzani, Fager and Ohshima.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC regarding augmented reality and location-based gaming claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani, setting the stage for trial.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor
The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over Parkin, Wang, Soukup, and Bowen. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) has filed an IPR petition challenging Feit Electric’s 8,614,539 patent covering white‑light LED devices with TiO diffusing layers, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Neural AI’s RE49461 patent covering GPU‑based neural network execution. The petition relies on six obviousness grounds based on Buck, Wilt, nnet, ANN and GPU Gems references. It also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
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.