Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2601–2700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited v.Standard Corporation India Limited
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous rejection of an injunction application in a trademark/passing off dispute between Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the suit's commercial nature and high valuation (around 10 Crores), the court directed that the matter be treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Furthermore, it mandated the Trial Court to expedite the trial process and aim for a final decision by March 31, 2027.
Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 769 722, where Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued several Meril entities for patent infringement, and the Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court of first instance found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent, ordering the Defendants to bear the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The Defendants sought rectification of the costs order, arguing the Court should have expressly ordered Edwards to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim proceedings. The Court dismissed the rectification requests, holding that the chosen cost allocation was a valid and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and the Rules of Procedure.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, seeks interim measures against the respondents, Lepu Medical entities, for alleged patent infringement. The respondents filed an objection on August 11, 2025, and requested that certain confidential information be protected with restricted access to designated persons.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving European Patent EP 2 133 289. Due to irregularities in the CMS, the filing dates of the defendant's reply and counterclaim for revocation were inconsistent, creating uncertainty about the applicable deadlines. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension to September 9, 2025, which the defendant agreed to, but the court only partially granted the request, extending the deadline to September 5, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend.
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. as inadmissible under Article 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. acts as a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH, a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Düsseldorf Local Division, and that the revocation action was a concerted strategy to circumvent the UPCA scheme. The Court held that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant for assessing the 'same parties' element, the mere existence of a concerted procedural strategy is insufficient to establish a straw company relationship.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
Blankenhorn GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a cost allocation dispute (Rule 360 RoP) between Faro Technologies, Inc. and Blankenhorn GmbH (Respondent 2) in proceedings concerning EP 4 001 835. The original proceedings involved an application for interim measures (injunction and sequestration) under Art. 62 EPGÜ against both PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (the manufacturer) and Blankenhorn GmbH (the German distributor), following alleged infringement observed at the 'Control' trade fair in Stuttgart on May 6, 2025. After Faro settled with PMT Technologies and Blankenhorn submitted a cease-and-desist declaration, Blankenhorn sought a ruling on cost allocation for the now-concluded proceedings between the two of them.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) concerning provisional measures under Rule 211 in a patent infringement dispute. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, both part of the Johnson & Johnson group, are the applicants seeking provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH in relation to European Patent EP 3 689 262, which protects a staple cartridge for medical stapling devices. The patent, granted on 8 November 2023 with unitary effect registered on 15 April 2024, is a divisional of EP 2 621 360 B1, against which no opposition was filed.
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED v.MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 651 838, titled 'Glazing System,' owned by City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, an Indian company. The patent, which expired on 14 July 2024, related to a self-locking glazing mechanism using aluminium profiles and grooved rubber beading. The proceedings involved both an infringement action by City Glass against several Maars entities and a counterclaim by the Maars parties. The decision, delivered on 29 August 2025, addressed issues relating to the expired patent, a final cost decision, and a security deposit under Rule 3(c) UPCA.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against HBCU Messaging’s messaging patent was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing procedural rules and claim‑construction inconsistencies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions involving Netlist’s patents after the Director recused herself, leaving the Board’s decisions final.
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 the Netlist IPRs, making the Board's decision final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of a PTAB decision in its IPR against Netlist, leaving the Board’s ruling intact.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2017‑00549, finding that Samsung Electronics successfully invalidated ten claims of Netlist’s ’364 memory‑module patent as obvious over the Halbert and Amidi references. All challenged claims were held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 8,471,950 camera‑control patent, asserting that three earlier imaging patents render all 15 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed a petition for rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition relies on an expanded stipulation to waive district‑court invalidity grounds and cites recent informative decisions to argue that the patent’s post‑expiration assertion makes denial inappropriate.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s decision to refer the matter to the district court, leaving HBCU Messaging’s patent intact.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against HBCU Messaging’s MMS patent. The petitioner argues that its claim‑construction positions are consistent with district‑court rulings and that the Board improperly applied the Revvo discretionary denial. Apple asks that the decision be vacated and the case be instituted on the merits.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
A settlement agreement between the U.S. government and a group of gun‑rights claimants resolves three pending federal lawsuits over forced‑reset triggers. The parties dismiss the cases, return seized devices, and release each other from future claims, while agreeing not to enforce certain firearm statutes against the claimants.
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
Citrix Systems and Cloud Software Group moved to withdraw their IPR against K.Mizra’s 8.2 million‑patent. The Patent Owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple filed Director Review requests for two IPRs against HBCU Messaging’s patent. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence. A decision on the review will follow.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software. The parties also filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the underlying district court case.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s decision not to institute the IPR covering HBCU Messaging’s patent 11,089,450, as well as two related IPRs. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks reversal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its DRAM‑module patent, arguing Samsung failed to name a required real party in interest and that the proceeding duplicates parallel ITC litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 34 claims of Netlist's ’060 memory‑package patent are obvious over prior art such as Kim, Rajan, Riho, and Wyman. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed, leading to a complete invalidation of the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent succeeded, finding all 20 claims obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman. The decision invalidates the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director review of two PTAB decisions was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025‑01431, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable after Samsung demonstrated obviousness over Harris, FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the 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 Board finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and other prior art. The term “rank” was construed to include only a single memory device.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (and its combinations), cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived. Samsung emerged as the prevailing challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that, absent extraordinary circumstances, IPR panels must resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision. The rule aims to streamline proceedings and prevent repeated issue‑by‑issue hearings.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art fails to teach key claim elements and the expert declaration offers no new analysis. The Board is urged to reject institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Netlist’s 10,025,731 memory‑module patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art from Ellsberry, Dour, and Abadeer. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
Atrius has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate ABC IP’s forced‑reset trigger patent (US 12,038,247) by arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents and publicly posted YouTube videos that disclose a three‑position selector.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’510 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition presents three grounds, each invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103, targeting the entire claim set.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services’ hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing that claims 1‑14 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’775 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Boelter, Gruber, and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 25 claims of MessageLoud's 9,591,117 patent covering hands‑free message notification, citing Boelter, Gruber and Polak as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,471,950. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Tsujino, Shui, and Iwasaki—across three separate grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Maxell’s ’198 patent covering digital image playlist creation, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds, each pairing specific claim groups with combinations of earlier patents.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01473 for Atrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP, LLC because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
Titan Company Limited v.M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr.
Titan Company Limited filed a suit against M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrighted images, and registered designs associated with the 'Tanishq' brand. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were using these proprietary assets on their website and social media to sell jewellery products. After considering the submissions, including an undertaking from the Defendants, the court decreed the suit.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Active Ayurvedic Life Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Pstgems Private Limited, an ex parte ad-interim injunction in a suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its trademark 'BRAMPIUM' and associated copyrights. The court recognized the urgency of the matter concerning counterfeit products and ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with accessing Defendant No. 1's premises, reviewing CCTV footage, and examining account books and stock registers to gather evidence of infringement.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Nitin Maheshwari And Anr v.Patanjali Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
Faro Technologies, Inc. withdrew its application for interim measures against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and sought a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid in connection with that application under Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Rule 370.9(b)(i) applies only to actions and cannot be applied directly or by analogy to applications for interim measures. The court further noted that the fixed court fee for an interim measures application is already substantially reduced compared to a full action and does not depend on the number of parties, so no partial reimbursement was warranted even if the rule had applied.