Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1401–1500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHE v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of the IPRs against Headwater Research’s patents, finding the parallel proceeding’s trial date too close to the expected final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 4 of Qomplx’s 2022 cloud‑telemetry patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art references describing virtual appliances and cloud agents. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Bayer Healthcare Llc filed an appeal seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 1788/DELNP/2007. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the patent term had expired.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics settled their patent and trademark lawsuit over bunion‑correction technology. The settlement was announced in a press release and filed as an exhibit in the PGR proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 55 claims of Damaka’s ’116 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on obviousness grounds over prior‑art references such as Abuan, Eisenberg, Beilis, and Guzman.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging Damaka's U.S. Pat. 11,930,362, which covers modular video‑conferencing software. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel claims 1‑28 and 75.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 28 claims of Damaka’s U.S. 9,270,744 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka’s U.S. 9,027,032 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over four prior‑art references that disclose similar APIs, function blocks, and authentication mechanisms.
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The defendant failed to file a Defence to revocation within the two-month time period and did not respond to the action in any way. The claimant requested a decision by default, arguing that the patent should be revoked for extension of claim 1 beyond the application as filed, lack of novelty over prior art and public prior use, and lack of inventive step. The Court considered the conditions for a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Zydus Lifesciences Limited v.E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc
Zydus Lifesciences appealed an injunction restraining it from selling its anti-cancer drug ZRC 3276, which was allegedly infringing E. R. Squibb's patent (5C4). The court considered the conflict between protecting IP rights and ensuring access to life-saving medication. Ultimately, the court modified the order by vacating the injunction but requiring Zydus to file audited accounts of sales until the patent expires.
Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre
This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, with the PTAB finding all eight claims unpatentable based on multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' 8,385,913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange via a server.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a mobile‑commerce patent, asserting anticipation by Perttila and obviousness over Perttila combined with Swartz. The petition seeks institution of review under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing they are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art systems that use dynamic device identifiers and a central server.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,896 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing e‑commerce server technologies. The petition seeks institution of the review under §103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a proximity‑marketing patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over prior‑art systems like Perttila, Insolia and Davis. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 19‑23, 25‑26 and 28‑29.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google secured a mixed victory in IPR2020-00931, with the PTAB finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims of the ’359 patent unpatentable while leaving two claims intact.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom Wireless’s ’359 patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, citing Perttila and Insolia as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based data‑exchange patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over the Eagle reference and, for three claims, the combination of Eagle with Mgrdechian.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’129 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior art. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of fifteen claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,913 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,116,749 patent was denied. The Board found the petition’s anticipation and obviousness arguments based on Mgrdechian and Kulakowski insufficiently particularized, especially regarding dynamic identifiers and predetermined events.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' 8,369,842 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against patent 8116749 resulted in a mixed decision: five claims were held unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while four claims remained patentable because the obviousness challenge failed.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless information exchange. The PTAB found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a wireless‑communication patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier Bluetooth‑based systems such as Eagle and Mgrdechian.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate six claims of HFT Solutions’ ’286 patent, alleging that the FPGA‑PLL synchronization method is fully disclosed in Altera’s white paper, the Stratix Handbook, the Si5345 manual, and a 2012 Lockwood paper.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging InterDigital’s ’876 patent covering large‑block intra‑prediction in video codecs. The petition asserts obviousness over Xiong, VCEG‑AJ21, and H.264, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18.
Kapil Goyal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Kapil Goyal appealed the refusal by The Registrar of Trade Marks to register the mark 'DOUBLE-CHOICE' under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The initial rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and descriptive. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reasoning for deeming the mark descriptive was unfounded, especially since the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
Steigerwald Arzneimittlewerk Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application (No. 1285/DEL/2009) on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The invention relates to a method for producing a plant-based medicament, Iberogast, which requires a specific mixing sequence for stable quality. The High Court found infirmities in the Controller's order regarding the reasoning under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its subject trade mark, 'PETKIND', citing similarity to a prior application. The Appellant argued that their extensive use and established goodwill with marks containing 'KIND' should qualify them for higher protection. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation regarding European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for mobile Internet browsing using location data. Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation, and Suinno applied to amend the patent in response. The Court addressed the procedural requirements and admissibility criteria for such amendment applications, distinguishing between objective requirements (filing deadline, inclusion of at least one amendment, use of the official language) and matters of judicial discretion (clarity, sufficiency of explanation, reasonableness of number of amendments).
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Comunication Co., Ltd a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Nera Innovations Ltd. following appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP against an order of the Hamburg Local Chamber dated 24 April 2024, which had rejected the claimant's request to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. through their German subsidiary. The court addressed the scope of reimbursable representation costs, the number of authorized representatives required, and the recovery of travel expenses for oral hearings. The decision establishes that appeal proceedings on specific procedural issues do not require more than one authorized representative and that the standard ceiling of reimbursable representation costs does not apply to such procedural appeals.
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v.Koninklijke Philips Nv
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's decree awarding substantial damages against the appellants (Maj Retd. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) for infringing Patent IN 2182555 held by Koninklijke Philips Nv. The court adjudicated applications seeking stay of execution of this judgment and decree.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Anrose Pharma
The suit was filed alleging infringement and passing off concerning the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of 'ZEROVOL-P' was deceptively similar, confusingly misleading, and aimed at capitalizing on the Plaintiff's goodwill in medicinal preparations. Given the Defendant failed to contest the suit despite being served, the Court decreed the suit.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.Aquestia Limited
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. appealed a Single Judge's decision which held that its product, Hydromat Valve (an FCV), infringed Patent IN 4270503 of Aquestia Limited. The appellate court found errors of principle in the lower judgment regarding claim interpretation and fundamental differences in technology between the two valves.
Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v.Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that struck off the registered BLUE-JAY trade mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court examined whether the removal was justified based on grounds like bad faith and prior user status.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
E.R.Squibb & Sons LLC challenged the recommendation made by the Opposition Board regarding Patent No. IN340060, arguing that the board failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the patentee during post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare Limited. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the recommendation is only a suggestion for the Patent Authority, the petitioner could raise these objections during the final decision-making process or appeal.
Google LLC v.Gamba Group Holdings LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition against Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s 9,772,193 patent covering Bluetooth and GPS‑based parking‑location methods. The petition asserts anticipation by Baese and Phillips and obviousness with Phillips and Soliman, seeking cancellation of claims 12, 13, and 15‑18. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co v.EPO
1 Paris Central Division Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts UPC_CFI_1771/2025 betreffend das EP 3 327 608 erlassen am 30. Dezember 2025 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Das Einheitliche Patentgericht wendet gemäß Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 20 des Übereinkommens üb
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Qomplx’s multi-factor authentication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Kirti patent and the Coffin textbook. The petition seeks institution of IPR on claims 1‑21, 23‑28, and 30.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Tempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,218,934 covering contextual, risk‑based multi‑factor authentication. The petition asserts that claims 1‑30 are obvious over prior art including the Kirti patent, the Coffin textbook, and Vemulapalli’s virtual‑machine teachings. No objective evidence of non‑obviousness is presented.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc., v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 50 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’053 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of CDN‑related prior art. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra v.Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra filed an Interim Application alleging that unknown persons used her photographs to generate and circulate obscene, sexually explicit deepfake content created via artificial intelligence. She sought immediate orders to remove all infringing content from online platforms due to the severe damage to her reputation and dignity. The Court passed an interim order directing all defendants to delete the specified URLs and instructing government bodies (MeitY and DoT) to pull down the unlawful content.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) dated 6 November 2025, which ordered it to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation following the early termination of an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 671 173. Suinno requested a reduction of the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the awarded amount was proportionate within the applicable ceiling of EUR 600,000 and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment of the recoverable costs.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,701,173, which covers CDN cache‑policy methods. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all fourteen claims.
Ravi Chauhan v.Pankaj Chauhan
The plaintiff, a registered patent and trademark agent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- against the defendant. The dispute arose because the defendant failed to pay the agreed fees for filing a counter-statement in opposition to the trademark 'FULEZ'. Since the defendant remained absent despite service and was proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.
Surface Logix Llc & Ors. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical Lucius Pharmaceutical(Lao) Co. Ltd & Ors.
Surface Logix LLC and its associates filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Lucius Pharmaceutical for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 291914, titled 'PHARMACOKINETICALLY IMPROVED COMPOUNDS'. The court addressed various procedural applications, including granting exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent and directed Defendant No. 2 (an online platform) to delist all advertisements related to the generic product 'BELUMOSUDIL' or brand name 'LuciBelu'.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
Bunch Microtechnologies Pvt Ltd v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
In an amicable resolution, the Delhi High Court disposed of the copyright infringement suit filed by Bunch Microtechnologies against Telegram Fz Llc. The parties successfully negotiated and formalized a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing how complaints regarding content infringement must be handled. This SOP mandates specific proof requirements from complainants, such as demonstrating ownership of copyright or trademark, before Telegram takes action. The court upheld this agreement, binding the defendant to the terms while granting the plaintiff a partial refund of court fees.
Mandeep Singh v.Shabir Momin & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to the rectification and cancellation of trademarks associated with 'Instant Bollywood.' While the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material documents indicating prior knowledge of the trademark registrations, it chose not to dismiss the interim injunction application. Instead, the court entertained the injunction but imposed a significant cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner for the non-disclosure.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_809/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2025 DEMANDEURS ROBERT BOSCH GmbH (Partie à la procédure au principal - Défendeur) 1 Robert-Bosch Platz 70839 GERLINGEN – DEUTSCHL
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust regarding European Patent EP 2 903 267 against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, INFINIX Mobility, TECNO Mobile, and several European distributors. On December 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a request to withdraw the action against all defendants, which was consented to by defendants 1-4 and 6-8, while defendant 5 (ASD SAS) did not appear. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 11,400) to the plaintiff.