IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 97 of 189 · 5,670 total
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology petitions to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,806,454 covering a wearable breast pump, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s IPR petition against patent number 10367138 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under Section 103 grounds.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Feit Electric Company, Inc., challenging 14 claims of patent 8614539. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed LED device components are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
Anil Jain v.Rajan Bhutani
The plaintiff, trading as Mahavira Tractors, filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'REAL DIAMOND' (registered mark) versus 'STAR DIAMONDS' (defendant's mark) used for Mechanical Seals. The court found that the marks were not deceptively similar and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning the temporal scope of the UPC's competence under Article 32(1) UPCA. The court held that the UPC has competence to hear an infringement action concerning acts that occurred both before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and its subsequent withdrawal, and that this does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP in an infringement and revocation action involving two European patents (EP '117 and EP '364). The Milan Local Division granted a partial stay of proceedings solely with respect to EP '117, holding that where all parties jointly request a stay, the Court has no discretion and must order it. The proceedings regarding EP '364 were allowed to continue as scheduled.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns a request by the Defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection regarding information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) under a prior decision of 11 March 2025. The court dismissed the request in its entirety, holding that Rule 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties, not to information ordered to be disclosed to the opposing party, and that the existing use restrictions inherent in the information order sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiffs (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care entities) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 were ordered to continue, and the settlement details were ordered to be kept confidential.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,071,207 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over a PCB insulation patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on good‑cause grounds before institution.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal regulations, limiting public access to the document.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 9,107,324, citing a settlement agreement and good cause under PTAB precedent. The motion seeks to end the pre‑institution proceeding to conserve resources.
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.