Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2801–2900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf and a proposed preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU. The underlying dispute involved Seoul Viosys's infringement action against the expert companies concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, which the Local Division had revoked following a counterclaim for invalidity and ordered Viosys to pay the costs. The Court of Appeal addressed fundamental questions about the scope of the UPC's ability to refer matters to the CJEU, holding that while the UPC may request interpretation of EU law, it cannot request interpretation of the UPCA itself or its Rules of Procedure.
Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in case UPC_CFI_630/2025 concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd., who challenged both infringement and validity of the patent-in-suit. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel to ensure proper assessment of the patent's validity at the interim measures stage.
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim issued a procedural order confirming the judge-rapporteur's earlier decision to reject the Claimant's request to submit a further written pleading on infringement. The Claimant, Centripetal Limited, sought to introduce a new infringement reading based on an alleged newly discovered functionality of the attacked embodiment, but the panel held that allowing such a submission at this late stage would prejudice the Defendants and disrupt the scheduled oral hearing. The panel further barred the Claimant from introducing a fifth infringement reading, noting that the relevant functionalities had been known to the Claimant since 2023 ITC proceedings and since the March 2025 launch of the Defendants' AI Stack.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,905,895 and jointly requested that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The petition seeks withdrawal from the proceeding and confidentiality for the agreement.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac, together with Champion Power Equipment, filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the IPR file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related IPRs.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek IPR cancellation of all 21 claims of Champion’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing obviousness over DuroMax, Elsdon, Parlatore, Hallberg and a lack of structural support for key claim terms.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...
Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.
Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd v.Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio
The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant, Adeia Guides Inc., filed exhibits 8 and 9 late on 5 August 2025, and sought a corresponding extension of deadlines. The defendants, comprising three Walt Disney entities, indicated they did not object provided their own subsequent deadlines were not shortened. The court granted the extension, determining that the relevant deadlines for the claimant's rejoinder and reply would begin on 5 August 2025.
ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS-related entities and Ninepoint GmbH) to extend the time period for submitting their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 849 157. The defendants argued that the time period should run from when they obtained access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1, which contained an agreement between the Claimant and the patent's co-owner. The court granted a one-week extension, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the extension was sufficient to compensate for the delayed access to evidence.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.Respondent
This is a definitive rectification order issued by the Local Division Brussels concerning a request under Rule 353 RoP to correct a costs decision (ORD_33711/2025 - ORD_8991/2024) issued on 25 July 2025. The plaintiffs, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought correction of a material error in the costs decision, specifically that expert VASQUEZ's costs of €2,200 were not included in the total reimbursement amount of €43,865.64 owed by the defendant. The court addressed the scope of rectification orders, clarifying that they cannot revisit the reasoning of the original decision and have no expanding or limiting effect on it.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technolo-gy Co., Ltd.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 147 029 against four Chinese defendants before the Local Division Munich. The court ordered the separation of proceedings because service had been effected on two defendants but not yet on the other two, creating mismatched procedural timelines. The action against the two served defendants was ordered to proceed separately, while both proceedings would remain before the same panel.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s speech‑interface patent was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the asserted obviousness grounds.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,398,209. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines while they finalize the settlement and prepare dismissal filings.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.
Bikaner Sweets Corner v.Balaji Corner & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bikaner Sweets Corner against Balaji Corner & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' adoption of the identical mark 'BIKANER SWEET CORNER' constituted potential infringement and passing off, given the proximity of the outlets and similarity of goods. Furthermore, the Defendants were immediately directed to cease using the impugned signboards and packaging within one week.
Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 UPC_CFI_192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/08/2025 Concerning: R.333 review of an order regarding a preliminary objection R. 19 RoP APPLICANTS / DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN
Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, Reflection Investment B.V., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Oleading B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l., OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, OnePlus Technolog v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendants (a group of OPPO, OnePlus, Realme, and related entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Innovative Sonic Corporation based on European Patent EP2765731. The defendants argued that English, being the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, that the preferences of the first-instance panel be considered, or that oral proceedings be conducted in German even if the written language were changed.
Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr. v.Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pi Investment Advisory LLP against Registrant of Premjiex.Com & Ors. The court granted the plaintiffs exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court allowed the filing of additional documents and formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for service and pleadings.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The claimant filed suit against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis group entities. The parties jointly requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which was granted by the judge-rapporteur pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno B.V. had been ordered on 26 August 2024 to provide €25,000 in security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA, which it duly provided. Following the adjudication of the appeal on 26 June 2025 and the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security with the consent of Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH's bank account.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The order addresses several preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including the appointment of a technical judge, the use of visual aids, and the rescheduling of the main hearing. The court set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the infringement claim and the counterclaim, and rescheduled the oral hearing to 22 August 2025.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application by RiVOLUTiON GmbH for suspension of enforcement (aufschiebende Wirkung) of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Munich Local Division on August 6, 2025, in favor of Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC regarding EP 2 515 768. The Munich Local Division had ordered Rivolution to cease offering, marketing, or using surgical instruments incorporating the features of claim 1 of the patent in Germany, with a coercive penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Rivolution to pay EUR 64,000 in preliminary costs to Cilag. Rivolution appealed the decision, whose reasoning had not yet been issued, and sought suspension of its effectiveness pending the appeal.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate multiple claims of Foundation Medicine’s ’830 cancer‑sequencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and NGS analysis.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.
Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.
Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file a further pleading addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants (Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş.) for the first time in their statement of defense. The court granted the application, finding that allowing a further pleading on the FRAND issue was warranted for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, and noted that the defendants would not be prejudiced and no procedural delay would result.
Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED , Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
Barco N.V. v.Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a security deposit of EUR 56,000 previously provided under Rule 158 RoP to cover the legal costs of the Defendants in proceedings related to European Patent EP1944067. The underlying provisional measures application had been dismissed, and the Claimant had been ordered to pay costs. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court ordered the release of the security deposit for direct transfer to Kinexon's bank account in accordance with the settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect’s request for review of a discretionary denial, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics relationship and AutoConnect’s lapses in fee payments and commercialization. The filing argues that these factors preclude any expectation that the ’153 patent would be enforced against Ford.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB decision that granted institution based on a supplier‑based settled‑expectations theory. AutoConnect Holdings contends the Board relied on unsupported facts about Flextronics’ supply of infotainment systems and seeks reversal.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01383 was granted, allowing the trial to proceed after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Bulgari S.P.A v.Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels
Bulgari S.P.A filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels for alleged infringement of trademarks and copyright. Following mediation, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in July 2025. The Delhi High Court subsequently accepted this agreement, finding that all executory obligations had been met by the defendant. Consequently, the court disposed of the original suit strictly in terms of the settlement, while also directing the refund of the entire court fee to the plaintiff.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Sauss Home Products Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Robin' bird device mark used in FMCG products. The court first dismissed the defendant's challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to sales and online promotion there. Subsequently, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and copyright infringement, granting an interim injunction against the defendant.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. v.Maschio Crop Protection Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. against Maschio Crop Protection Llp, halting the latter's use of the 'MASCHIO' mark and similar variants. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given its global reputation and registered rights since 1998. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the brand while the main suit proceeds.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Limra Auto Connect
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, affirming the strength of its trademark rights over 'HERO' across various products. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from serving advance notice on the defendant, M/S Limra Auto Connect. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct an inventory of alleged infringing goods, including packaging materials, ensuring the preservation of evidence in this ongoing intellectual property dispute.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aubade Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aubade Healthcare Private Limited regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, demonstrating a balance of convenience, and noting the likelihood of irreparable harm if the Defendants were not restrained from using similar marks to 'ZENTEL.' This interim order is crucial for protecting the Plaintiff's brand integrity while the main suit proceeds.
Thilakarasu Venkatasamy trading as Grand Catering Company v.Brand Avatar Llp
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions OP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024 after the parties, Thilakarasu Venkatasamy and Brand Avatar LLP, reached an out-of-court settlement. The petitions sought the removal or rectification of specific trademark entries (Registration Nos. 5795826 and 3843193) in Class 41. Given the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the proceedings to be dismissed without further order on costs.
Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. v.Baljit Singh Gandhi
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. against Baljit Singh Gandhi. The court permitted the Plaintiffs to submit additional documentation, while also granting an exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court proceeded with interim measures, directing a Local Commission to be executed to inspect and inventory alleged infringing goods bearing the 'SIGNATURE' trademark.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns infringement actions filed by multiple Moderna entities against Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP2279254. The defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with a counterclaim for revocation and a request for confidentiality (R.262A Application) on 8 July 2025. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, including the handling of confidential information in the pleadings submitted by the defendants.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
Nine Stars Group filed a preliminary response opposing an IPR petition by Guangzhou EKO. The owner contends the cited Chinese patents are not prior art and, even if they were, do not make the ’796 claims obvious. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
An exhibit submitted by Netskope shows K.Mizra's extensive litigation history, listing dozens of active and terminated district‑court cases. The document is used to underscore a pattern of settlements in the IPR challenge of patent 8234705.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01369 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Ranjan Kumar Yadav Owner Of Anavi Collection
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Ranjan Kumar Yadav for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's', in relation to clothing and accessories. The court proceeded ex parte against the defendant due to non-appearance and found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks on inferior quality goods.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbH v.Surftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 728 089 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The Claimant, American Wave Machines, Inc., is involved in infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four Defendants. The court amended its prior order of 1 August 2025 to classify certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential and to restrict access to unredacted versions of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. At the joint request of both parties under Rule 321 of the Rules of Procedure, the language of proceedings was changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas in place of legally qualified judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,173,100 covering vehicle network security. The petition argues lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. Ford seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.