IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 99 of 189 · 5,670 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential while seeking to terminate the IPR over patent 9,045,101.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition to cancel all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier driver‑authentication systems such as Murphy, Schanz, Petrik and Benco.
RingConn LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 1‑18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over Schröder, Niwa, Mestas and Yuen.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Astral Limited v.Mahavir Electric And Hardware Stores
Astral Limited filed a suit against Mahavir Electric & Hardware Stores and Vikram Traders for infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademark 'ASTRAL'. The court found that the defendants were adopting and using an identical trademark on counterfeit pipes and fittings, violating Astral's exclusive rights.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark infringement issues concerning Montblanc's brand. While the court previously extended an interim injunction to prevent the use of a newly identified fraudulent domain, it ultimately de-reserved the final judgments in the core suit. This indicates that while immediate injunctive relief is maintained against new infringers, the matter will proceed towards a full trial to determine damages and resolve the main claims.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers pharmaceutical formulations of a HER2 antibody (Perjeta®). The applicants alleged that the defendants were preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®, potentially infringing the patent. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to conduct the evidence preservation and inspection at the defendants' premises, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the outcome.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information order related to the infringement of Philips' European Patent EP 2 867 997. The Court of Appeal reduced the coercive fine from €46,000 to €42,000, ordered a partial refund, and adjusted the cost allocation between the parties, while rejecting the further-reaching claims of both sides.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung’s petition to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review was successful. The Board upheld the institution and found no error in the earlier decision, keeping the IPR proceeding alive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that terminated the IPR challenge to patent 11,687,971 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,443,344 after reaching a license agreement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet instituted the review, so termination is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
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.