Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1601–1700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing v.Mohan Singh Panwar
This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Titan Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Stove Kraft Limited v.The Registry of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
J S F Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Registar Of Trade Marks And Gi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court successfully mediated and settled disputes concerning trademark opposition appeals. Following a successful settlement agreement, the court disposed of the appeals and decreed the underlying suit based on the mutually agreed-upon terms. This judgment highlights the effectiveness of judicial mediation in resolving complex IP conflicts efficiently, allowing parties to achieve tailored resolutions rather than proceeding through lengthy litigation.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, in which Canon Kabushiki Kaisha is the Claimant and four entities (three Katun companies and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.) are the Defendants. The order addresses several interim procedural matters, including requests for reimbursement of damages and interim damages, a request for leave to amend the claim under Rule 263 RoP, a request to submit a further pleading under Rule 36 RoP, the contested issue of service on Defendant 3 (Katun Corporation), and the value of dispute. The Defendants declared willingness to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3 in order to reach an amicable solution, and the Claimant acknowledged that service was no longer contested.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH a. o. v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 061 575 B1, with the Austrian claimant M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH (joined by Katharina Schulz as third counter-defendant) asserting patent infringement against the Turkish defendant Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi. The dispute involved issues of indirect patent infringement, interim damages under Rule 119 RoP, and a counterclaim for revocation based on lack of inventive step. The court established key principles limiting recall and destruction remedies for indirectly infringing products, requiring plausible factual estimates for interim damages, and demanding substantive explanation of prior art combinations in revocation actions.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on December 4, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH in preparation for a future main action. The patent was granted on July 5, 2023, and is in force in twelve European countries including Germany. The applicant had previously revoked its opt-out from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court on November 21, 2025.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. During the proceedings, the defendant stated that they have not commercialized any infringing product and their activities are covered under Section 107-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
Neon Laboratories Limited v.Vishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
S Birpal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As Pawandeep Singh and Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the procedural form of a petition seeking cancellation of four registered trademarks (AKALI PATRIKA). The respondent argued that Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires separate petitions for each mark. The petitioner countered, offering to deposit additional court fees or file multiple petitions. The Court found the petitioner's suggestions reasonable and directed the respondent to take instructions before listing the matter again.
Amycell LLC v.***
1 Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 09/12/2025 regarding: R.356 and R.353 APPLICANT/DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Spyra (Applicant) - - - - Represented by Michal Przyluski RE
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Riferimento n. UPC_CoA_12/2025 APL_366/2025 DECISIONE della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti del 9 dicembre 2025 sulla concessione del risarcimento dei danni e delle spese NOTE (i) Ai sensi dell'articolo 68(1) Accordo TUB, la Corte, su richiesta della pa
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against EP 3 083 107 B1, in which the defendant Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG filed an objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure. Nanoval argued that the action was abusive, brought by a 'straw man' subsidiary of ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (which was already involved in parallel infringement and nullity proceedings before the Munich Local Division), creating double lis pendens. The defendant contended that the plaintiff and the Munich defendant were the 'same party' under Article 33 of the European Patent Convention Agreement, distinguishing the situation from Meril v. Edwards.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc. a. o.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 243 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs and requesting reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against AutoConnect’s ’186 patent, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics partnership and AutoConnect’s maintenance‑fee lapses.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. faces a PTAB Director Review petition after the Board instituted an IPR on AutoConnect’s infotainment patent. The patent owner argues Ford’s settled‑expectations narrative and claim‑construction positions are inconsistent, warranting discretionary denial of institution.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Intellectual Ventures’ LTE‑related patent, alleging obviousness over multiple pre‑grant references. The petition cites Papasakellariou, Classon, Liu, Muharemovic, and Onggosanusi as prior art.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent No. 9,123,186, which covers vehicle‑access control based on user accounts. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over earlier automotive restriction systems (Gratz, Bosch, Rector, Moinzadeh). The Board is asked to institute the review.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01529 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional decisions affecting multiple related proceedings.
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order regarding Patent application no. 201621004267. The petitioner asserted that mandatory procedures under Section 25(1) were not followed and the certificate of grant had not been issued despite filing a pre-grant opposition.
Dabur India Limited v.Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160) in favor of Dabur India Limited, who challenged the mark's validity. Dabur successfully established a prima facie case based on its long-standing use and reputation of the core mark 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930. The court found that the Impugned Mark completely subsumes the Petitioner's mark, creating an irrefutable likelihood of confusion and deception in the market.
M/S Loreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Others
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark 'LOREN BORORICH.' The sole ground for the petition was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide use of the trademark in relation to Class 3 goods for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use and the respondent's failure to provide evidence, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed from the register.
M/S. Loreal v.Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pidilite Industries Limited. The court condoned delays in filing replications for certain defendants. Crucially, while some parties proceeded toward trial, other defendants (18, 19, 20, and 21) were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, reflecting a judicial push towards alternative dispute resolution in complex IP litigation.
M/S L Oreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Ors
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S L Oreal seeking the cancellation of a similar mark, 'LOREN BOROHERB,' registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted evidence of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned registration be removed from the register, reinforcing the importance of active commercial use for maintaining a trademark.
Marico Limited v.Minolta Natural Care
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied OneSource Solutions' request for Director Review of the denial to institute a PGR against Hippocratic AI's patent 12,142,371. The original institution denial therefore remains in effect.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OneSource Solutions requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its challenge to Hippocratic AI’s AI‑LLM patent. The petition focuses on structural and indefiniteness deficiencies in Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b).
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied OneSource Solutions’ request for director review of its denied PGR petition against Hippocratic AI’s U.S. Patent 12,142,371. The Board found the request failed to meet the statutory standards for reversal.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OSSI Corporation filed a motion to correct procedural defects in its petition against Hippocratic AI's patent, seeking Board approval to submit a compliant filing.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed petitions seeking the revocation or removal of Indian Patents Nos. 356246 and 397206 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that these patents are part of Respondent No. 1's H.265/HEVC patent portfolio, and accordingly listed the petitions for further hearing.
S Chand And Company Ltd v.Kaushal Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by S Chand And Company Ltd against various booksellers and e-commerce platforms. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court issued an ad interim injunction directing Defendant No. 5 (Flipkart) to immediately take down listings of counterfeit books infringing on S Chand's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. Furthermore, the court provided procedural directions for serving summons and verifying the addresses of the various defendants.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the appeal filed by Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court disposed of an application seeking exemption from filing certain documents, directing that certified copies of illegible materials be submitted within four weeks. The main appeal petition, challenging a prior order by the Trademark Registrar, was subsequently listed for further hearing on January 15, 2026.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant, T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., challenged demands raised by the Department regarding service tax on royalty income received for allowing group companies to use their registered logo 'TTK'. The dispute centered on whether this usage constituted a taxable Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service or was exempt under copyright law.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
Centripetal Limited, the registered and sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1 relating to Methods and Systems for Efficient Network Protection, sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of the patent in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The patent was granted and published on 29 May 2024, and the prior opt-out was withdrawn from the register on 12 July 2024. The case was heard by a panel of the Local Division Mannheim on 9 October 2025, with a decision delivered on 5 December 2025.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
The Local Division in Copenhagen issued an order regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1, partially upholding a request for penalty payments against the defendant for delayed compliance with a prior evidence preservation order. The Court found that the defendant had delayed 36 days in providing requested login information for financial systems, email accounts, and a seized computer, without presenting substantiated circumstances justifying the delay. Considering the seriousness of the breach and principles of fairness and proportionality, the Court set the penalty at EUR 2,500 per day for the first 18-day period and EUR 1,250 per day for the subsequent 18-day period, resulting in a total fine of EUR 67,500.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order (inaudita altera parte) for the preservation of evidence issued by the Local Division of Milan. 3V Sigma S.p.A., the holder of two European patents relating to triazine photostabilizing compounds and UV filter cosmetic compositions, had sought evidence preservation measures against A.G.A. S.r.l. and A.C.E.F. S.r.l. The defendants challenged the ex parte order, alleging breach of the duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP and insufficiency of the evidence presented under Article 60.1 UPCA. The Court rejected these objections, clarifying the ex ante standard for assessing disclosure obligations and the threshold for 'reasonably available evidence' required to support a patent infringement claim.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, to reopen the oral hearing in a patent infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought reopening based on post-hearing discussions with an expert who allegedly had access to the Defendants' source code in US proceedings, claiming the Defendants' representative made false statements about the absence of gateway and broker functionalities. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases arising during the oral hearing and cannot be used to introduce new infringement allegations after closure of proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a. o. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed key legal questions regarding the relevance of independent process claims and their descriptions when determining the scope of protection of independent product claims. The court also examined whether an injunction covering the making of a product can be issued when the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the contracting member states.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
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 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Ykk Corporation v.Kc Sapra & Ors.
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Ykk Corporation against Defendant No. 3 based on an amicable agreement reached during litigation. The defendant admitted to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights (including 'YKK'), agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or counterfeit goods, and committed to handing over seized infringing products. Furthermore, the settlement included a payment of damages/costs by the defendant and established strict compliance mechanisms, including future audits.
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited, directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark 'CRISPRO'. The court found that the failure to send the mandatory renewal notice (FORM RG-3) to the Petitioner's updated address constituted a violation of statutory rules. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and mandated the timely completion of the renewal process.
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
Filmtec Corporation & Anr. v.Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division – Court of First Instance - UPC_CFI_1167/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 December 2025 Applicant INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachuset
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, brought by Aesculap AG against three Shanghai Bojin-related entities. The court addressed four procedural matters: scheduling the oral hearing, the claimant's request to extend claims to include an additional product called the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party, and Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights. The court set the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, ordered the addition of the new party, and provisionally assessed the remaining requests while reserving final decisions for further deliberation.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
BARCO NV v.1. YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and 2. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology's '879 patent in a PTAB decision focused on obviousness. The Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that combining prior art references would render the claims obvious, upholding the validity of the challenged technology in orthodontics.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Pratap Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.
KT&G Corporation (Xx) v.YY
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.
Akashdeep Enterprises Through Lrs & Anr v.Ella Foundation
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Akashdeep Enterprises against Ella Foundation. The suit, filed under the Trademark Act, sought protection against groundless infringement threats. The court found that the likelihood of confusion between the parties' distinct goods (household products) and services (medicine/research) was minimal. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from taking coercive steps, such as de-listing Plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms, until the final hearing.
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas v.M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds (JAKAVI®). The court passed several orders granting exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding mediation, identity masking, and advance service, while also directing the execution of Local Commissions to investigate the alleged infringement.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lucius Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 concerning Ruxolitinib Compounds. The court granted various exemptions sought by the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation, and proceeded with appointing Local Commissioners for the execution of the patent.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 223 589. The Local Division had largely upheld bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement claims while rejecting Windhager's invalidity counterclaim. Windhager sought suspensive effect, arguing the first-instance decision contained obvious errors in its assessment of direct infringement and the dismissal of the invalidity counterclaim, and also requested a stay of the appeal proceedings pending a new invalidity action filed by LS 9 GmbH before the Central Division Milan.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.