Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2501–2600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Exotic Mile v.Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.
Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural directions in the trademark opposition case filed by Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. Despite ongoing mediation efforts, the court set a timeline for the respondents to file their replies within six weeks, followed by rejoinders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and completion of pleadings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the trademark dispute between Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking records from the Trademark Registry, noting that the record had been received by the parties. Furthermore, the court set a schedule for both sides to file written submissions on the main case before listing it again in January 2026.
Hardwyn India Limited And Anr v.Rajenndra Engitech Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Hardwyn India Limited and Rajenndra Engitech LLP, focusing on the use of the mark 'HARDVIN' which was deemed deceptively similar to 'HARDWYN'. The court accepted a comprehensive undertaking from the defendant, requiring them to cease using the impugned mark and initiate its withdrawal from the Trademark Registry. Consequently, an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, recognizing the mutual interest in resolution, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the petition filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., directing the rectification of Trademark Registration No. 5849026 held by Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that the goods and service details in Class 11 be amended to specifically reflect 'Bathroom and Sanitary fittings and accessories,' thereby limiting the scope of the trademark registration. This decision allows the petitioner to achieve a more precise definition of the registered goods, aligning with prior agreements.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Respondent
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
UPC Decision UPC-000366 v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. against several defendants, including members of the BEGA group of companies, alleging infringement of European Patent EP3522755B1. The patent relates to a cabinet designed to house a washing machine or washer-dryer at waist level for ergonomic use. The application against the first defendant, Wasombouw B.V., was withdrawn shortly after filing, while the proceedings continued against the remaining defendants. The Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance held an oral hearing on 14 August 2025 and issued its order on 11 September 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This provisional order concerns a confidentiality application filed by the defendants (MediaTek) in connection with their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The defendants sought protection for technical information regarding the functioning of certain chips, particularly the implementation of an encoding algorithm, and requested that access be limited to a maximum of three named persons from the plaintiff's legal department. Huawei opposed the request, arguing the information was not protectable as it consisted merely of negative facts, and alternatively requested access for nine, six, or three named persons.
Washtower v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH et al
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. (Applicants), proprietors of European Patent EP3522755B1 relating to cabinets for housing washing machines at waist level, sought provisional measures against several defendants from the BEGA furniture group and a related partner company. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent by the defendants' manufacture and sale of competing washing machine cabinets. The Local Division The Hague issued an order on provisional measures following an oral hearing held on 14 August 2025, after the Applicants filed their application on 28 May 2025 and the parties exchanged submissions including objections, replies, and rejoinders.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201717045317), titled 'Material comprising a stack of thin layers', by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the claimed invention lacked technical advancement over prior art.
K Arjun Singh And Others v.Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside an adverse interim injunction that had been granted against the appellants' registered trademarks. The court found the initial finding of infringement to be ex facie impermissible and noted a lack of categorical finding regarding passing off goodwill. Consequently, both parties agreed to have the Commercial Court decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC without being influenced by the previous impugned order.
Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S Safed Parindey Event Management Llp & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition seeking intervention in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, claiming rights over various trademarks, sought the court's direction to expedite the decision on an injunction application filed before the Commercial Court. While acknowledging the urgency, the High Court directed the lower court to proceed with deciding the interim injunction on the next scheduled date (September 16, 2025). Crucially, the court stipulated that no adjournment would be granted to the defendants, ensuring a swift resolution of the urgent matter.
M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd, interim relief in its suit against Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders. The court recognized the strength of the 'BLUE HEAVEN' brand, noting its long history since 1972 and extensive portfolio of registered trademarks and copyrights across various cosmetic product lines. Crucially, the court directed the defendants to immediately take down listings of impugned products on major e-commerce platforms like Meesho and Amazon, affirming the plaintiff's rights against online infringement.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.
Kamdhenu Steels And Alloys Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard a petition challenging an order directing a company to change its name based on alleged resemblance to another entity's brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the application for rectification was filed within the statutory three-year limitation period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. While acknowledging the complexities of IP disputes between related entities, the Court granted a stay on the impugned order pending further arguments, allowing time to resolve the jurisdictional and temporal issues.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
ECOVACS Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a request for extension of deadlines filed by Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff alleges infringement of European Patent EP 3 494 446 against four Ecovacs group entities in China, Germany, France, and the United States. Defendant 2 seeks to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense and any counterclaim for invalidity until November 26, 2025, and the deadline for filing a Preliminary Objection until September 26, 2025, offering in return to facilitate service on the other three defendants to create a uniform deadline regime.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano DECISIONE del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848 Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE Rappresentato dag
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court decision.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
Hitesh Rastogi v.M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several connected trademark infringement matters involving Hitesh Rastogi and M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner had filed these petitions without obtaining prior leave from the Civil Court under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Consequently, the matter was listed for a future date, pending the adjudication of the petitioner's application seeking such leave.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Fraunhofer concerning European patent EP2609590. HMD Global Oy argued that the change was necessary for reasons of fairness, given that the evidence and annexes were predominantly in English, the defendant was based in a non-German-speaking country, and it communicated internally and with its representatives exclusively in English. Fraunhofer opposed the application. The order reflects a weighing of the parties' positions and the relevant circumstances of the case.
ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 08/09/2025 Concernant la prorogation des délais (R. 9.3 RdP) REQUERANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED (Parties à la procédure au principal - Dé
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Respondent
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order treating certain information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours spent on the case and fees agreed upon. The respondent objected, arguing no specific reason for confidentiality was provided and that cost specifications could not be considered trade secrets or attorney-client privileged. The Court granted Microsoft's application, holding that such information qualifies as confidential under Rule 262A RoP and falls within the scope of attorney-client privilege under Rule 287 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Dacia S.A., Renault Deutschland AG, Renault S.A.S. v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Hamburg granted a procedural application by the Renault/Dacia Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Avago Technologies concerning European patent EP3720095. The Claimant did not object to the application, and the Court relied on the reasoning of a prior order dated 3 July 2025 between the same Claimant and three of the present Defendants. The Court ordered that the language of proceedings be English, the language in which the patent was granted, and that no specific translation or interpretation arrangements would be required.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by the Defendants (Renault entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on EP3651429. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The court considered the fairness grounds and relevant circumstances under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP, referring to a previous order between the same Claimant and three of the Defendants.
Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants, Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, to stay both infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. EP 3 821 580 pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The defendants argued that a preliminary EPO opinion indicating added matter made revocation highly likely. The claimant, Centripetal Limited, opposed the stay, arguing the preliminary opinion was non-binding and that the UPC proceedings were well-advanced with an oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the stay request, finding it preferable to proceed with the hearing as planned to avoid conflicting decisions.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, but prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court allowed both withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was required as the parties agreed to bear their own costs.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim. All 15 claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent‑assertion firm Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025‑00986 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes, ending the proceeding before it was instituted.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. sought a rehearing of the Director Review in IPR2025-00959, but the USPTO denied the request. The decision leaves the original patent enforcement order in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all court deadlines for 45 days to finalize the agreement and file dismissal papers.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne’s request to rehear the PTAB Director’s decision de‑instituting its IPR is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the request merely repeats already‑rejected arguments and violates rehearing standards. The response cites the Revvo and Tesla precedents to support the denial of the rehearing.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 26 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN caching patent. The petition relies on obviousness over Kenner and on combinations with Vetter, Rekimoto, and Boyles, and also challenges claim 28 under §112. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
Belparts Group N.V. v.Respondent
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK)
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 relating to a robot localization method, filed an application on September 2, 2025, parallel to a main infringement action, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of Roborock (HK) Limited at the IFA trade fair in Berlin (September 5–9, 2025). The patent had previously been opted out but the opt-out was withdrawn on July 16, 2025. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on September 4, 2025, concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_552/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Applicant) - 333 Lakeside Drive - 94404 - Foster City - US Rep
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 385 739. The plaintiff, UERAN Technology LLC, has brought claims against seven Xiaomi group entities. Defendant 5, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, requested the court to establish a unified deadline regime for all defendants and to extend the deadlines for reply and rejoinder by two weeks each to account for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Respondent
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, Zapp AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants sought an extension from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, while the plaintiff opposed the request and proposed at most a one-week extension. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf applied Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that extensions should be granted only in justified exceptional cases and that parties must file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear they cannot meet the deadline.
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.
Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited
The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.
Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.