IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 98 of 189 · 5,670 total
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and patent holder ImberaTek have settled their dispute over patent 7,989,944 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on good‑cause authority to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement for the 8,368,201 patent dispute confidential and only disclose it under strict conditions.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate nine IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes covering nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate all related IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,609,527 as confidential business information, limiting public access.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,609,527 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 9,922,348. The denial leaves the earlier institution outcomes unchanged.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint PTAB petition to seal their settlement agreement, seeking to keep it confidential and limit access under federal regulations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and that parallel district‑court litigation makes the IPR redundant. The request urges termination of the proceeding under § 314.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks to block Stratasys’s request for a Director Review of an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,569,466. The petitioner argues the referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that the broad stipulation eliminates any parallel district‑court litigation. The Board is urged to deny the review request.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied a petition for review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466). The denial leaves the institution decisions intact.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
GD Energy Products has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑15 of Kerr Machine Co.'s 12,152,582 pump patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art pump designs and indefiniteness of claim 15.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 36 claims of ImberaTek's 7,989,944 patent covering embedded components in circuit boards, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printing patent covering RFID‑based material tagging, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of ImberaTek’s ’816 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art packaging references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek's 9,107,324 patent on circuit modules, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple filed an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7609527 patent covering electronic modules, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466), asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
M/S Applesoft v.The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Secretary to Government, Department of Information Technology
M/S Applesoft filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff claimed breach of an implied contract by Defendant No. 1 (C-DAC) related to free distribution of Tamil language software. The High Court upheld the dismissal, primarily finding that the Bengaluru Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
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.