Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2101–2200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution in certain IPR proceedings involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00059 involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC. The Board found the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH a.o.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. , Meril GmbH , Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by the Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. 4 151 181 B1 ('EP 181'), alongside a counterclaim for infringement brought by Edwards against the Meril entities. The dispute encompasses both the validity of EP 181, challenged by Meril, and alleged infringement of EP 181, asserted by Edwards. The Court of First Instance issued its decision on 20 October 2025, establishing legal principles on inventive step assessment, the holistic approach to non-obviousness, the definition of a realistic starting point, and the discretionary nature of injunctive remedies.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.
ONWARD Medical N.V v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, directed to a system for neuromodulation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the legal principle that auxiliary requests seeking interim measures based on alternative claim formulations deviating from the granted patent version are generally inadmissible in provisional proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ. The court held that a patent proprietor's request to amend the claim formulation indicates that the patent as granted is likely invalid, undermining the court's ability to assess the validity required for granting interim relief.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
This is a provisional measures order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division in The Hague, concerning European patent EP4344633. Applicant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with its FreeStyle Libre product, sought provisional measures against Defendants Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in connection with their GlucoMen iCan CGM system. The dispute centers on an alleged infringement of Abbott's unitary patent relating to CGM technology, with Sinocare manufacturing the device and Menarini holding exclusive distribution rights in over 20 European countries.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited
Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.
Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.
Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Kbm Foods Private Limited v.Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Wazahat Choudhary
In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Vivanta Stays & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against Vivanta Stays & Ors. The court recognized 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark and immediately restrained the defendants from using similar marks, such as VIVANTA STAYS/VIVANTA REALTY, both online and offline. Furthermore, the order mandated the immediate takedown of infringing websites and domain names, providing swift protection to the plaintiff's brand reputation.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Dilipkumar Narandas Sheth Trading As M/s. Arihant Enterprise
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications. The court allowed the defendant to file vernacular and dim documents while simultaneously directing both parties to engage in an amicable resolution. Crucially, the court acknowledged evidence presented by the defendant regarding the historical use of a specific logo as a watermark on invoices dating back to 1993, allowing the plaintiff to inspect these original documents. The judgment emphasizes the possibility of settlement before further litigation proceeds.
Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v.Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.
Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.1) Insulet Corporation; 2) EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - UPC_CFI_941/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rule 262.1 b) RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/10/2025 APPLICANT Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP - Breite Str. 29, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany Represent
Brita SE v.1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.
Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.
Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Shashikant Sharma & Anr.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' systems.
Darzi India Llp v.Kafil Ahmed
This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr., addressing claims of trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'YATRI' brand used for electric vehicles. The court recognized the Plaintiff's status as a prior user and owner, issuing a broad restraint order preventing Defendants from using deceptively similar marks online or offline. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the market reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's established e-vehicle brand.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Unique International Ev Private Limited v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Unique International EV Private Limited against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric vehicles under the 'PANTHER' brand, successfully argued that the Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by using confusingly similar marks for identical goods (e-rickshaws). This interim relief prevents the Defendants from continuing their alleged infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for invalidity regarding European Patent EP 3 567 731. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff Huawei Technologies requested permission to withdraw the infringement action against both defendants with the consent of Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 requested permission to withdraw its counterclaim for invalidity with the plaintiff's consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim granted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid by each party, while declining to issue a cost decision since neither party filed cost applications.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
All costs relating to the enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP. The wording of Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision. The
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. EP 2 755 901 B1, brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The dispute relates to the German, French, and Dutch portions of the European patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued headnotes addressing the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, the standard for inventive step regarding material selection, and issues of equivalence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Rajesh Pal Sharma v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Rajesh Pal Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which rejected his Indian Patent Application No. 201811004587. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies within specified timelines.
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Jubilant Generics Ltd.
This appeal before the Allahabad High Court addressed challenges to a Commercial Court's injunction order. The plaintiff, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, successfully argued that its comprehensive Product Dossiers—containing sensitive technical data for generic drugs like Losartan and Amlodipine—qualify as protected literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that the defendants misappropriated these confidential dossiers by transferring them from a Canadian subsidiary to their Indian affiliate, leading to unauthorized manufacturing and use in India. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the injunction.
Saksham Impex Private Limited v.Amit Patel
Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. challenged an arbitral award that rejected its claims against former employee Amit Patel, alleging breach of confidentiality and trade secrets related to the 'Monin' brand. The petitioner argued the arbitrator erred on grounds of perversity and patent illegality. However, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no ground to set it aside.
Smt. B.K. Annapurnamma, Sri B.N.K. Sarathi, Smt. B.S. Nagarathna, and Sri B.S. Sapthagiri (Partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works) v.M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works
The plaintiffs, partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works for infringing their registered design (No. 203040) of a display box. The court found that the copyright subsisting in the design had expired in 2016, rendering the cause of action infructuous.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.John Doe And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against defendants for alleged trademark infringement and disparagement of its iconic 'TAJ' brand. Citing the TAJ trademark as a well-known mark, the court restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating any content that infringes upon the brand. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 was specifically directed to immediately take down an impugned video uploaded on its Instagram channel.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. and Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. following an amicable settlement. The defendants agreed to permanently cease all use, promotion, and sale of products bearing the mark 'AGROCONTIN.' Furthermore, they acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights in 'NITROCONTIN' and committed not to adopt any deceptively similar marks incorporating the suffix 'CONTIN,' effectively resolving the dispute through a binding decree.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against an order relating to penalty payments under the Rules of Procedure. The judgment sets out headnotes explaining the framework for penalty orders under Rule 354.3 RoP, including when penalty orders may be issued, how penalty amounts should be determined, what specifications the order must contain, and the respective responsibilities of claimants and defendants regarding suggested amounts and time periods for compliance.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought relief against defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. Upon the defendants' motion and after hearing the plaintiff, the court cancelled the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, because one of the defendants' lead attorneys was personally unable to attend and substitution was not feasible given the short notice and case complexity. The court indicated its intention to schedule a new hearing for February 4, 2026, giving the parties until October 21, 2025 to submit comments.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple seeks dismissal as a co‑petitioner in an IPR over Headwater Research’s location‑service patent after the related Texas lawsuit was thrown out. The motion relies on procedural rules and lack of opposition from the patent owner.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple, Amazon.com Services and AWS have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’571 patent covering secure device provisioning over wireless networks. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems from Chia, Cunningham and others.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Yogesh Chaurasia
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bisleri International Private Limited against Yogesh Chaurasia. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was passing off their packaged drinking water as being associated with the plaintiff. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant's mark 'BRISLEI,' labels (OXY FINE and BILIFE), bottle design/shape, and even the green cap were substantially similar to Bisleri's distinctive trade dress. This ruling provides immediate protection to Bisleri while the main suit proceeds.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v.La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Crocodile International Pte. Ltd against La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. The court condoned the plaintiff's delay in filing its replication and granted an extension for filing a rejoinder, provided the plaintiff deposits costs. Furthermore, the court set out a clear roadmap for the case management, directing both parties to file documents, affidavits of admission/denial, and joint document schedules before proceeding to trial.
Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Flora Beverages India Pvt Ltd
In a commercial IP suit concerning energy beverages, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's request to consolidate multiple claims. The court granted leave for Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to combine its cause of action for passing off with those related to trademark and copyright infringement. This procedural step allows the parties to address all facets of their intellectual property dispute within a single legal framework, paving the way for further substantive hearings.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 13/10/2025 concerning the runtime and Preliminary Objection APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB held that WHOOP proved 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims were left intact.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB, on remand, affirmed that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and upheld the claim construction of “identify an object.”
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenges Maxell’s 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video transmitter that manages EDID information. The petitioner’s expert argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Funabiki, Guo, Fastert, and the E‑DDC Standard. No evidence of secondary considerations is presented.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.As Print Pack Global Private Limited
The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.
M/S. Aquapump Industries & Anr. v.Ravi Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification regarding a specific trademark registration. Following submissions from both parties, the court directed the cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6100995 for the mark in Class 11. This order mandates the trademark registry to rectify its records accordingly within four weeks, effectively clearing the title and resolving the dispute between M/S. Aquapump Industries and Ravi Yadav.
Ardo Medical Ag v.Ms Sdb International And Anr.
Ardo Medical Ag successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court to rectify the Trade Marks Register, seeking cancellation of a conflicting trademark registered by Ms Sdb International. The court found that Respondent No. 1 engaged in bad faith and trade mark squatting by registering an identical mark despite Ardo's prior use and global registrations. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the infringing trademark from the register.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Sanjay Tada
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully concluded its intellectual property dispute against Mr. Sanjay Tada through an amicable settlement before the Delhi High Court. The court decreed the suit based on the parties' undertaking, which required the defendant to acknowledge all of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright rights. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using infringing marks like '303', destroy all related materials, and change packaging for agricultural seeds.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,245,997 and filed a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and cites Board precedent for terminating settled proceedings.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.
Halozyme, Inc. v.Alteogen Inc.
Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering situational‑network advertising. The PTAB found all ten challenged claims (12‑21) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing obviousness over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision finalizes the institution and cancellation of the claims.
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.