Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2001–2100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, finding that the Petitioners' real party in interest (RPI) status was not definitively proven. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues before determining if the petitions are time-barred.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order from the Central Division Paris addresses Belparts Group N.V.'s application to join its counterclaim for infringement with the main infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich, in the context of multi-jurisdictional proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3812870. The dispute involves parallel infringement and revocation actions across the Local Division Munich and the Central Division Paris, with all IMI defendants consenting to the referral. The panel considered Rule 340.1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding connection of cases, taking into account the scheduling of proceedings and the pending Boards of Appeal hearing at the European Patent Office.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occultech GmbH. v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a. o.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2, issued on October 31, 2025. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, sought provisional measures in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out key legal principles regarding the scope of protection of device claims, the burden of presentation and proof in preliminary injunction proceedings, and the handling of disputed translations of prior art documents.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s patent 8,280,987 before the Board had instituted the trial. The motion argues the proceeding is still in a preliminary stage and seeks a speedy, cost‑effective termination.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of Samsung's IPR against Headwater's patent, citing the parallel proceeding's trial date as a decisive discretionary factor.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research settled its patent claims against Apple, licensing the patents and withdrawing related allegations, while the broader litigation against Amazon continues.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over CDN‑related prior art (Dilley, Russell) combined with Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑construction arguments for key terms.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against HBCU Messaging US LP, finding that Apple failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the registration of the mark 'VNYABAIE' in Class 3, which was registered in the name of Anupam Srivastava. The Delhi High Court issued notices to all parties and directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, setting a future date for hearing.
M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P. v.M/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v.Inkmango Inc. & Anr.
Juggernaut Books initiated contempt proceedings against Inkmango Inc. alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement decree regarding the publication of mandated disclaimers. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling its obligations, the respondents failed to publish the required notices on their digital platforms. While the court acknowledged the dispute over compliance, it did not immediately punish the respondent, instead directing them to file a compliance affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing.
Royal Coffee Works v.The Registrar Of Trademarks; Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited
Royal Coffee Works challenged the delay in processing its trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was opposed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited regarding the use of 'tea' in the product description. The Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner's grievance concerning procedural delays. The court directed the Registrar to expedite the matter and pass appropriate orders on both the original trademark application and the opposition within a three-month timeframe.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC_CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti in merito alla richiesta di garanzia per le spese ai sensi della regola 158 del regolamento di procedura emessa il 30 ottobre 2025 NOTE: • Se necessari
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning European Patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that the Unified Patent Court lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust's main claim sought a declaration that its licence offer was FRAND and, alternatively, a determination of FRAND terms by the court, which Vivo contended falls outside the UPC's competence. Vivo additionally contested the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Rule 19.1(b) RoP. Sun Patent Trust countered that the UPC has jurisdiction over FRAND aspects and that the Paris Local Division is competent to hear the case, requesting dismissal of the preliminary objection.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Ashique Exports, setting aside an adverse abandonment order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner argued that they were never properly served with the Notice of Opposition regarding their 'Vi-Wash' trademark application. The court found that since the official records lacked reference to the petitioner's registered email ID, the statutory requirement for deemed service under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act was not met. Consequently, the case has been restored for a fresh hearing after proper notice is issued.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Radhey Radhey Industries & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the defendants sought to vacate an existing injunction. The plaintiff argued that a pending rectification petition was irrelevant to the current litigation. The court directed the plaintiff to submit the entire record of the rectification petition within two weeks, ensuring both parties have access to all relevant information as the case proceeds.
M/S Bhagwati Enterprises v.Rajesh Kumar Aggrawal
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several procedural applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions for filing copies and instituting pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiff time to amend the plaint after finding that the initial claims regarding manufacturing capacity were unsubstantiated by the records.
Herbalife International Inc. v.Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing interim injunction against Herbalife's trademarks to a newly impleaded defendant (Mr. Narayan Lal Kumawat) after relying on a local commissioner's report indicating counterfeit activity. The court also issued strict directives, requiring all involved parties to discontinue selling infringing goods on Flipkart and disclose detailed transaction information related to the alleged trademark infringement.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd., in its suit against M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr. The court granted exemptions for pre-institution mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and stock of the Defendant, thereby initiating immediate protective measures against alleged trademark infringement.
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH, Skechers S.a.r.l, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers EDC SPRL, Skechers USA Italia Srl, Skechers USA France SAS v.FAST IP, LLC
FAST IP LLC brought an infringement action against multiple Skechers group entities based on European patent EP4003084 concerning rapid-entry footwear. The Defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Claimant opposed the application. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing the application to change the language of the proceedings.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sons against Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods (VITA GLUCO+) bearing deceptively similar packaging to TATA GLUCO+. The order also provided procedural relief to the plaintiffs regarding extensions of time, exemption from pre-institution mediation, and permission to file additional documents.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Impresario Entertainment, who holds a registered trademark for 'SOCIAL' used across various hospitality services. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, noting the defendant's prior withdrawal of its own application due to concerns over deceptive similarity. This interim order immediately restrains the defendant from using marks similar to 'SOCIAL', including variations like 'SOCIAL KITCHEN'.
Jsw Mg Motor India Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by JSW MG Motor India Private Limited challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order that treated their application as abandoned due to non-appearance. The Appellant argued that their newly engaged counsel made reasonable attempts to join the virtual hearing but was unable to do so because the VC link was sent to the previous counsel. The Court prima facie agreed with the Appellant, finding that the inability to attend was not attributable to the new counsel. Consequently, notice was issued to the Respondents, and the matter was listed for further consideration.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation a. o.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551, owned by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing procedural matters including the value of the case, reimbursement of legal costs, parallel proceedings status, the claimant's operational request regarding the counterclaim for revocation, and the admissibility of certain evidence and claim amendments. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement as exhibits and granted leave to amend the patent claims under Rule 263 RoP.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
IPM petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cisco’s ’708 video‑conferencing patent, arguing all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art sliders and layout controls.
Usms Saffron Co. Inc. v.Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement suit filed by Usms Saffron Co. Inc. against Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiff's registered trademarks and unique packaging/trade dress for 'BABY BRAND SAFFRON'. Furthermore, the court set out procedural directions regarding document submission, exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief, and fixed the fee for a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises.
Mohanlal U.Jain Trading As M/s.Master Marketing v.M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Mohanlal U.Jain, setting aside the Trademark Registry's decision to abandon his applications for 'Rallison APPLIANCES.' The core issue was whether the opposition notice served by M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had been properly served on the appellant as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found that despite evidence of communication from the respondent, there was no proof presented by the Registry confirming service upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Registry was directed to grant a fresh opportunity for the matter.
Sg Corporate Mobility Pvt .Ltd. v.Marvel Technoplast Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark opposition matter between Sg Corporate Mobility and Marvel Technoplast. The court granted an exemption request regarding the submission of a certified copy of an NCLT order, allowing the petitioner four weeks to comply. Furthermore, recognizing that Respondent No. 1 had filed notice of opposition to Petitioner's trademark application no. 6792577 but failed to appear, the Court directed formal service and issuance of notices to ensure due process continues in the matter.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
1 di 18 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC CFI n. 127/2025 ORDINANZA SULLA RICHIESTA DI RIESAME DELL’ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLA PROVA, DI ISPEZIONE E DI SEQUESTRO depositata in data 27 ottobre 2025 NOTE 1. Ai fini della conce
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.,Schnell s.p.a.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2726230 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for continuously producing a lattice girder. Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, the patent proprietor, alleged that the Girderflex/Girderflex VSX machinery produced by AWM s.r.l. (a member of the Schnell Group since 2022) infringed its patent. The defendants contested validity through a counterclaim for revocation, raising issues of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance addressed these substantive patent law questions alongside procedural matters concerning evidence preservation and requests to amend the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck, resulting in a complete invalidation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all twenty claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent. The PTAB held the claims obvious over the Kim, Rajan, and Wyman references and declared them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
Pas Agro Foods v.Krbl Limited; Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India; Deputy Registrar of Copyrights
Pas Agro Foods filed a Special Jurisdiction Case seeking the expungement of trademark and copyright registrations granted to Krbl Limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the petition and arguments, directed that notice be served upon all respondents via speed post and email. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity or ownership of the registered IP rights.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Pitambari Products Private Limited
In a dispute over trademark infringement, Capital Foods Private Limited and Pitambari Products Private Limited reached an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court formalized this compromise, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff while allowing the Defendant limited usage rights for specific packaging (PITAMBARI RUCHIYANA SCHEZWAN HOT & SPICY). This resolution allows the parties to move forward without protracted litigation over damages and accounts.
Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application for 'PATHKIND LABS'. The core issue was the existence of cited marks owned by the petitioner's director. By presenting an Assignment Deed and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the court found that the ground for rejection had been sufficiently addressed. Consequently, the application was directed to be accepted and advertised in the Trademark Journal.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This is an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies collectively referred to as 'Xinji.' The Claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after the standard service via The Hague Service Convention to China, initiated on 2 July 2025, failed to produce a certificate of service despite multiple inquiries. The Claimant proposed service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf by a German bailiff upon any staff member of the Defendants at their exhibition stand, with alternative methods also proposed.
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal
Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This decision concerns European patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. bioMérieux UK Limited filed a revocation action against the patent, while bioMérieux SA and other bioMérieux group entities filed a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action brought by Labrador Diagnostics in the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Central Division Milan addressed issues including amendments to the patent, auxiliary requests, added subject-matter, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, costs, and confidentiality. The court established that when a party submits numerous attacks that are unmanageable under principles of proportionality and speed, only the most promising attacks will be assessed on the merits.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
UPC_CFI_587 22 October 2025 1 UPC_CFI_587/2025 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague issued on 22 October 2025 concerning EP 3 988 471 (R.211 provisional measures) APPLICANT Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Represented by: Christ
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute, which sought to cancel the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30, was resolved amicably between the parties. Both sides entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the petitioner to withdraw the original petition.
Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd against S.Sudhakar and others. The dismissal was not a ruling on the merits but rather an acceptance of a Memorandum of Compromise signed between the parties. This settlement effectively resolved the dispute regarding the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
The Madras High Court dismissed OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025 after the parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., had sought the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam' registered by the respondents in Class 30. Given the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Rep. By Its Managing Director v.Sri Narasus Coffee Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit (C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 203 OF 2024) and an opposition petition (OP(TM) No. 62 of 2024) concerning the mark 'UDHAIYAM' versus 'UDHAYAM'. Both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn, concluding the litigation without a final judgment on the merits.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.
M/S.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by M/S.Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies. The petitioner had sought to cancel the trademark registration 'Udhaiyam' in Class 30, citing grounds for invalidity. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and filed an additional joint memo requesting withdrawal. Consequently, the court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. had filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359359 in Class 29. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, resolving the dispute amicably.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Amycel LLC v.XXX
This is a decision by default issued by the Local Division The Hague in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC, proprietor of EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production,' against a defendant referred to as 'PL.' The defendant failed to file its Statement of Defence in time after a Rule 275 order, resulting in a default judgment. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the related provisional measures proceedings, held that the mushroom strain at issue is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, found infringement, and granted measures insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.