Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1801–1900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Lincoln Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'Glypanta'. The court ruled that despite initial objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the applicant was entitled to proceed with the advertisement of the mark. This decision underscores the importance of following procedural steps like publication even when substantive objections exist.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni di Morello Marco & C. S.A.S. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Marciuliano Attrezzature di Marciuliano Salvatore
This is a default judgment decision concerning European Patent EP 3691454 B1, titled 'Method and apparatus for shaping pizza,' brought by Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. against Gastroteam Abbe AB (Sweden) and Salvatore Marciuliano, proprietor of Marciuliano Attrezzature (Italy). The defendants failed to appear in the proceedings, prompting the court to examine the requirements for issuing a default decision under Article 37 UPCS and Rules 277 and 355 RoP. The court analyzed the validity of service of the summons, the principle of non-contestation of specific facts under Rule 171.2 RoP, and the standard of proof required for default judgments.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o.
This case concerns European Patent No. 2 449 982 (as referenced in the order) and was filed by Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. against multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The proceedings were registered under case numbers UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025. The available text only contains the procedural header identifying the parties, their legal representatives, and the patent in suit, with the substantive content of the order not provided.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. v.Siltronic AG a. o.
This order concerns the scope of disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation proceedings and the protection of confidential information under Article 58 of the relevant agreement. The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., is the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to saw wires used in semiconductor wafer production. The respondents are Siltronic AG, a silicon wafer manufacturer that purchases saw wires from the applicant, and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG, a logistics company providing storage services. The presiding judge established guiding principles for handling trade secrets, personal data of third parties, and other confidential information when disclosing the expert report to the applicant.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.
M/S Metrix Research And Analytics Private Limited v.Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi
The plaintiff, a market research company, sued its former employee, Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi, alleging that he misused confidential trade secrets and proprietary methodologies after resigning to benefit his new employer. The court examined the allegations of misappropriation but found the evidence led by the plaintiff to be deficient and conjectural.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. v.Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes between M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. and Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors. The dispute centers on the use and protection of trademarks, specifically 'GHADI' and 'GHAR'. While several interlocutory applications were disposed of, the court formally allowed the suit to proceed, setting timelines for both parties to file their written statements and replies, thereby moving the matter into the substantive litigation phase.
Irish Distillers International Limited v.Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Irish Distillers International Limited, leading to the cancellation of the 'BLUE SPOT' trademark registration held by Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the mark for over five years from its grant date. Given the lack of market presence and unrebutted evidence of non-use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reinforcing the statutory grounds for trademark removal.
Pachranga International Inc. v.M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark dispute, Pachranga International Inc. sought interim relief against M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd for the continued use of the mark 'PACHRANGA' on social media and in its corporate name. The Court directed the defendant to ensure all remaining infringing listings are removed within one week upon receiving specific examples from the plaintiff. However, the court deferred a final decision on the issue of the defendant using the trademark as part of its corporate name, requiring further consideration after the injunction application is determined.
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd v.Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the ongoing IP infringement suit filed by Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd against Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set out a detailed schedule for the parties to file their written statements and replication, while also addressing procedural matters regarding document filing and translation.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (TP-Link entities and Lianzhou International) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. concerning European patent EP 3678321. The Defendants argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness, citing the strict time constraints of the UPC rules of procedure, the internal working language of the parties, and the need for rapid coordination among the multiple Defendants. Huawei opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The matter was referred to the President of the Court of First Instance under Rule 323 RoP, with the panel of the Local Division Munich consulted.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (ACD), a California-based company and proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization (ISH) technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, brought infringement actions against Molecular Instruments, Inc. before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The patents concern methods of detecting nucleic acids in individual cells and identifying rare cells from large heterogeneous cell populations using multiplex fluorescent and chromogenic ISH assays. The proceedings were heard orally on 2 October 2025, with the panel comprising Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judge Alima Zana, judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke, and technically qualified judge Michael Alt.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.,
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
In IPR2024‑01094, the PTAB held claims 1,2,6,8‑14 of Pictiva’s OLED patent unpatentable over the Ma reference, while claims 3‑4 were upheld. The decision hinged on obviousness of joint vaporization and metal‑complex coordination.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of Samsung's challenged OLED claims unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over multiple prior‑art OLED references. The decision affirms the institution of the IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
Aqualite Industries Private Limited v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 relating to a cable processing device, filed an application for an order of inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. The application was filed on November 14, 2025, in preparation for a main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on November 17, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sought inspection at the respondent's trade fair stand at the EMO Messe Hannover, which was ordered and executed in September 2025. Following the respondent's failure to assert any confidentiality interests regarding the expert's detailed description, the court ordered disclosure of the unredacted version to the applicant.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor Of Fashionista & Ors.
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a contempt petition against Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor of Fashionista & Ors., alleging willful disobedience of a compromise decree dated 13.10.2025. The original suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of Nike's intellectual property. Despite settling the matter and undertaking to cease all infringing activities, the petitioner presented evidence showing the respondents continued selling and soliciting the impugned goods. Consequently, the court found prima facie grounds for contempt and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize the infringing materials.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed an application seeking condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an Appeal against the refusal of Patent Application No. 201917042060. The Respondent accepted the notice and stated they had no objection to the condonation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
woodland aero club pvt ltd v.ms narayan enterprises anr
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. sued M/S Narayan Enterprises for unauthorized use of its registered trademarks 'WOODLAND' and the Tree Mark Logo on jackets, causing likelihood of confusion among consumers. Defendant No. 1 was selling infringing jackets at a significantly lower price than Woodland’s genuine products.
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration (TM Application no. 4287348) held by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-use of the mark for over five years in Class 43. The petitioner presented evidence suggesting that the registered party lacked necessary operational licenses and was not conducting services under the impugned mark. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued directions to serve notice upon all parties before listing the matter for final adjudication.
Zafar Alam & Anr. v.Mahesh Kumar
This Delhi High Court order addresses multiple interim applications concerning a trademark dispute involving 'LINK' and its variants. The Plaintiffs filed an application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior injunction, while the Defendant sought to vacate that same injunction. The court noted procedural lapses, specifically the Plaintiffs' failure to file required written submissions. Consequently, the court directed the Plaintiffs to submit their written arguments within two weeks before proceeding with the merits of the applications.
Arq Providores v.Schloss Hma Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Arq Providores against Schloss Hma Private Limited. While the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion and potential harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, it balanced this against the Defendants' existing use of the marks since November 2024. Consequently, the Court granted a conditional interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to restrict the use of 'ARQ' only in conjunction with their house mark 'THE LEELA' for specific services (Class 43), discontinue an infringing logo by December 15, 2025, and refrain from using 'ARQ' for certain food/catering services.
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
M/S Nice Confectionary v.M/S Nice Food Products
The petition challenged an arbitration award related to a trademark dispute. The claimant (M/s Nice Food Products) alleged that the petitioner (M/s Nice Confectionary), who used the trademark 'PRIKA'S CHAA-PAT', breached the conditions of a 2005 license agreement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy, together with Malikie Innovations, filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement that resolves their dispute over a smart‑home energy patent.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
The IPR concerning Patent 11,119,756 was terminated after Vivint Smart Home, NRG Energy and Malikie Innovations reached a confidential settlement before the trial was instituted.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s 9,318,609 FinFET patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier TSMC patents and related publications. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103, relying on Xu, Ching, and Huang references.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twenty claims of Malikie Innovations’ ’756 patent covering IoT software‑update control, citing obviousness over the Storto and Won publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Dassault Systèmes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Madhav Arora & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and allowing various procedural applications related to evidence and service.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et. al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC initiated infringement proceedings against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. None of the six defendants filed a statement of defence or counterclaim, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The claimant subsequently applied for withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal along with confidentiality for the settlement-related annexes and a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Genentech, Inc. - F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. - N.V. Organon
1. A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings in application of R. 197.3 RoP: a) First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” (cf. LD Munich 28 May 2025, UPC_CFI_63/2025 and LD Düsseldorf 16 April 2025, UPC_CFI_539/2024) decided to issue an “ex parte” order to preserve evidence/for inspection (R.194.1(d) RoP juncto R. 194.2 RoP). In this assessment, the Court should take into consideration the facts and evidence (i) brought forward in the application for an
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. a.o.
1. One of the circumstances relevant to admission to a confidentiality club is whether the individual is an employee of the party, an employee of the party’s economic unit or an employee of a third party. 2. If it is possible for a person who is not an employee of the party to join a confidentiality club, it is – depending on the relevant circumstances of the case – in any case justified for employees of the party or its economic unit to be admitted to a confidentiality club. UPC_CFI_7
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' 7,936,736 B2 patent, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, leading the PTAB to deem all eight claims unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of a patent covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that five claims of the ’592 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange were obvious over Perttila and Insolia, rendering them unpatentable, while four other claims were upheld.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, asserting obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google files an IPR petition against Secure Communication’s ’359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious in view of Swartz. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, relying on Eagle and Mgrdechian prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the Eagle reference anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions to invalidate 22 claims of the ’359 patent, arguing that the invention is anticipated by Perttila and obvious when combined with Insolia. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and a finding of unpatentability.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 62 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth‑beacon patent, asserting that each claim is anticipated or obvious over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen, Kallio and Jones. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and collateral estoppel to bolster its request for institution.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Google LLC's IPR against Secure Communication Technologies regarding patent 11995685. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Calcutta High Court for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'JAY'S,' registered by Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-established brand, 'LAY'S.' Given the similarity in goods (snack foods) and the petitioner's immense goodwill, the court ruled that the registration of 'JAY'S' violated the Trademarks Act and must be cancelled.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’922 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art location‑service references.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Avant's ’032 patent covering location‑based presence services. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’910 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The challenger relies on prior art in the form of Kraufvelin, Hashimoto, Huomo and Andersson to argue obviousness under §103.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’621 patent covering mobile‑presence monitoring, arguing that all 18 claims are obvious over prior art such as Putkiranta, Kraufvelin, Granberg, and Rachabathuni.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant Location Technologies' ’030 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all claims.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’040 patent covering mobile‑station presence monitoring, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The request hinges on alleged inconsistent claim‑construction positions and procedural violations.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Telcom Ventures' 9,832,708 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Byrne, and White references.
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
The Board denied institution of the IPR, finding that Cruzr Saddles LLC failed to meet the particularity requirements when challenging Tethrd LLC's patent using online video evidence.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.