IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 97 of 140 · 4,175 total
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Nivagen’s orphan‑drug patent. The petitioner argues the denial improperly treated claim‑construction issues as discretionary and was issued by the wrong official.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant, Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co., seeks full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter beyond the original and earlier application EP 3 055 603. The Defendant, Häfele SE & Co. KG, contests the revocation and has filed 80 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The order is a Case Management Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur addressing procedural directions, including the uncontested value of the proceedings set at EUR 500,000.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
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.