Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2701–2800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate Meridian International’s 11,192,689 patent covering a stackable storage system with a sliding latch. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute and request the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while Generac Power Systems continues as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential, limiting access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, contending that the prior art never teaches the claimed ‘unlock’ function and that Samsung’s expert testimony is conclusory.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate W&Wsens' 12,243,948 patent covering microstructured photodetectors, asserting obviousness over Kuboi, Vasylyev and Shinohara and lack of enablement.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Meridian International’s ’946 patent covering a stackable storage box with a stop‑part mechanism. The petitioner alleges the invention is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Li and Baruch. The Board is asked to institute the trial and invalidate the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’228 patent covering biometric unlock and communication between a smartwatch and smartphone, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on six grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining Aminzade with Sowers, Soli, Hong, and Altman.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01388 after determining the petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional reviews.
Decathlon v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has petitioned the PTAB to cancel three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid generation patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references. The petition details claim constructions and shows overlapping component ratios with the references.
Liberty Energy Services LLC 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' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
The USPTO Board denied institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings, including IPR2025-01442, citing failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP, arguing that as a Chinese-domiciled entity, enforcement of a cost order in China would be uncertain. Huawei countered by providing a legally binding assurance that any cost decision could be served on its German subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Deutschland GmbH.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB v.Respondent
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
ULRICH HERPICH E.K, HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L., Alpinestars S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns an application by Dainese S.p.A. for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs requested by the defendants. Dainese sought to restrict access to certain financial information and exhibits, while the defendants agreed with the confidentiality designation but requested broader access for their representatives and key personnel. The Court addressed the balance between protecting confidential business information and ensuring the defendants' right to a fair trial.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.Respondent
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.Gautam Kumar & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Gautam Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, addressing alleged infringement of its flagship 'MAXO' brand mosquito repellent product. The court recognized that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spying cameras embedded within or bearing deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered products. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from dealing in these infringing goods and ordered to remove all related listings and advertisements from major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Nurotron Global SARL, Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent were obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all 17 challenged claims unpatentable. The decision follows an institution on the same claims and denies the patent owner’s motions.
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 Netlist’s high‑bandwidth memory patent. Samsung argues the Director has already rejected Netlist’s real‑party‑in‑interest arguments and that Netlist waived its Fintiv arguments, supporting denial of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist requests the PTAB Director reverse the institution of a PGR against its ’087 patent, arguing Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest. The filing also highlights duplication with parallel ITC proceedings involving Google and Super Micro.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its co‑petitioners successfully proved that Netlist’s 10,949,339 B2 memory‑module patent was obvious over prior‑art references Ellsberry and Halbert. The PTAB declared all 35 challenged claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all claims challenged by Samsung (via SK Hynix) in Netlist’s ’537 patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Amidi and Klein.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decisions in two Netlist memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
This exhibit memo outlines new PTAB procedures requiring panels to decide all raised grounds in a final written decision for inter partes review and post‑grant review cases, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The policy aims to promote efficiency and prevent re‑opening of issues on remand.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email to counsel confirming receipt of Netlist’s Director Review request in PGR2025‑00071. Samsung may submit a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung's challenge to Netlist's ’160 memory‑package patent failed; all 20 claims were found obvious over Kim, Rajan, and Wyman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the district‑court construction of “array die” and rejected Patent Owner’s arguments about non‑DRAM dies and collision risks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2025-01402 the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard. The decision clears the way for Samsung’s memory products.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent unpatentable after finding it obvious over the Ellsberry reference. Samsung’s construction of “rank” as a single‑device rank was adopted, and the patent owner’s supplemental evidence was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of Netlist’s ’833 hybrid memory patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Best, Bonella, and Mills. Samsung, as petitioner, prevailed on both claim construction and obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two IPRs involving Netlist patents, citing the Director's recusal and delegated authority. The Board's Final Written Decisions remain 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 decisions in two Netlist IPRs. Because the Director was recused, authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent, who affirmed the PTAB decisions as final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s 30 claims covering a flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module are obvious over prior art, invalidating the entire ’054 patent. Netlist’s challenge succeeded on grounds of combining Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s backup circuitry, and Hajeck’s over‑voltage protection.
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 (alone or combined with standards), cancelling 63 of 65 claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed a petition for inter partes review of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 11,275,900, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based cyber‑threat classification.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01402 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The decision was based on a merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The order addresses an application by Inventronics GmbH (the applicant for file inspection) to suspend proceedings regarding file access. Given ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court ordered the file inspection proceedings suspended by agreement of all parties until a request for resumption is filed. The plaintiff's related request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des einheitlichen Patentgerichts verkündet am 22. August 2025 betreffend EP 2 387 547 B1 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Zweckangaben in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch definieren eine Vorrichtung regelmäßig dahingehend, dass sie geeignet sein muss, für die
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia submits an affidavit containing Wayback Machine screenshots of ceramic vape cartridges to show prior art against U.S. Patent 11,235,110. The evidence aims to prove the patent’s claims lack novelty.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,235,110 covering a vaporizer device for psychedelic compounds, asserting that the device, formulations, and isotopomer claims are fully anticipated or obvious by extensive prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR involving Topsoe and CASALE regarding patent 11286168. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01441 after a merits review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from dealing in products that infringe their patent (IN 294424) related to Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those for document production and exemption from mediation. In the main application for interim injunction, the Defendant provided an undertaking not to launch infringing products.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) d’une demande d’intervention (R. 313 RoP) rendue le 21 août 2025 DEMANDERESSES LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italie représentée par Michele De
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request by the defendant HMD Global Oy to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a patent infringement action brought by Fraunhofer. The court denied the extension, holding that the defense deadline under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already calibrated to permit fact-finding and internal coordination, including across vacation periods, and that the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations does not justify additional time where license offers and counter-offers have been on the table for years.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Respondent
This Order of the Court of Appeal concerns Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese for an upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. The Court of Appeal addressed whether simultaneous interpretation should be ordered at the Court's expense or whether Yealink should be permitted to engage interpreters at its own cost. The Court held that the mere fact that a defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not official does not justify ordering simultaneous interpretation, and that company officials' difficulties in following proceedings also do not generally warrant such interpretation.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in revocation proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The Central Division had previously revoked the Defendant's patent and ordered the Defendant to provide security for the Claimant's legal costs, which was duly deposited. Following a settlement agreement between the parties, both jointly requested the release of the security to the Claimant, and the Court granted the request by applying Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The plaintiff, Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), is suing Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The order addresses the conclusion of the interim procedure under Rules 104 and 110(1) of the Rules of Procedure, setting out the court's preliminary view on the relevant skilled person and the feature breakdown of patent claim 1 to be used at the oral hearing.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit two physical objects (its old product and new product 2) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request on the grounds that the exhibits were filed late without any explanation. The Court of First Instance rejected the request, finding that BSRP failed to justify why the physical objects could not have been submitted earlier, particularly together with its statement of defence.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co KG (Austria), filed an infringement action against the defendant, Inventronics GmbH (Germany). On the joint request of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of proceedings under Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure due to ongoing settlement discussions.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s 9,036,701 patent. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy benefits of settlement.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia over patents 9,036,701 and 11,805,267. The Board granted joint motions to terminate, ending the IPRs before institution.