Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 2901–3000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Natural Medicine Institute Of Zhejiang v.The Deputy Controller of Patents And The Controller of Patents
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 6275/CHENP/2011) for 'A MORDANT AND HAIR COLORING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME'. The rejection was based on procedural grounds regarding claim amendments, but the court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Western Digital Technologies Inc. against M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was selling manipulated and refurbished HDDs bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, thereby infringing on their brand rights and engaging in passing off. This interim relief prevents the defendant from further tampering with or commercially dealing in the branded products until the final hearing.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff, Bombay Dyeing, to implead two new entities, M/s Ooak Association and M/s Urban Stuff Retail, as defendants in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that these newly identified parties were organizers of an exhibition where counterfeit 'BOMBAY DYEING' bed linens were being sold. Furthermore, the Court granted exemption from advance service to several existing defendants, facilitating the continuation of the injunction proceedings against the infringing products.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a dispute over security for costs in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 670 898. The Defendants (Arthrex entities) requested EUR 3,300,000 in security (EUR 1,100,000 per Defendant), while the Claimant (Syntorr LP) opposed any security order or alternatively requested a reduced amount of EUR 1,000,000–2,000,000, offering to provide security via litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement. The Judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide EUR 2,000,000 in security by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court's account, ruling that the Claimant's insurance policy was not adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP and that an amount exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs was not justified.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application (202034009705) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 and negligence of the Indian Patent Agent, not intentional inaction. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the mandatory timelines under the Patents Act must be complied with, and the petitioner demonstrated an indolent attitude.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
The court passed several orders on various interlocutory applications related to the main patent dispute. Directions were given regarding the filing of additional documents, permission was granted for amending claims under Sections 58 and 59 of the Patents Act, and an application seeking amendment in a Revocation Petition was disposed of while reserving rights.
Force Motors Limited v.Houstan Innovations Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed several interim applications in the dispute between Force Motors Limited and Houstan Innovations LLP. While allowing procedural requests like filing additional documents, the court focused heavily on the request for an ad-interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the Plaintiff's established goodwill with 'FORCE', the court granted a temporary restraint order, preventing the Defendant from using the similar mark 'GT FORCE' in relation to identical or similar products until the next hearing date.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. against the dismissal of its trademark opposition. The court found that the original rejection was based on a factual error, as the Appellant had actually received the notice for filing evidence via email on September 15, 2024, not the date mentioned in the letter. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to hear and decide the opposition within two months, while also directing the registry to update the status of the trademark application.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.M/S Steris Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the removal and rectification of the trademark 'INCLISIRAN' (Registration No. 5547194) in Class 05. The court issued notice to all parties involved, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. This marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge against the registered mark.
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 presents aggregate PTAB IPR statistics for hard‑disk patents, noting a 100% institution rate across 4,148 trials. Twenty percent of those trials produced mixed claim findings, while the majority favored the petitioner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,115,731 B2, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding before trial.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,545,247 B2 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of Cisco’s IPR petition covering 21 claims of a 2008 wireless‑mesh patent, arguing settled expectations, weak invalidity grounds, and unfavorable Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’952 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Ganz, Srikrishna, Bishop and the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The PTAB issued multiple institution decisions, granting IPR for several cases including IPR2025-01516 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-merits grounds.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
Joy Creators Llp v.Best Medicals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Joy Creators LLP against Best Medicals & Ors., based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the parties. The judgment confirms that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'JOY' trademark and grants permanent injunction relief. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement for damages and costs, leading to the court also directing the refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the multi-sports aggregator platform 'FanCode'. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds exclusive broadcast reproduction rights for various major sporting events through licensing agreements. Given the immediate and irreparable pecuniary loss caused by unauthorized streaming on rogue websites, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with blocking orders while ensuring compliance procedures were followed.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.
Energy Beverages Pvt Ltd v.Ekadanta Packaged Drinking Water and Others
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and trademark infringement against the respondents. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'CLEAR' and proprietary rights over its artistic label and bottle shape, arguing that the defendant's use of 'CLEAR GOLD' amounted to infringement and passing off.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Sidharth Jindal v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Sidharth Jindal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of his word mark application, 'BANGTAN BOYS BTS.' The court found that the initial objections raised under Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act were unsustainable. Crucially, the court overturned the rejection based on the 'proposed-to-be-used' basis, holding that this conclusion was erroneous and contrary to Section 18 of the TM Act. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for advertisement.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.Respondent
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect certain cost-related information submitted in connection with its application for a cost decision under Rule 150 et seq. RoP. The information sought to be protected is a breakdown of the hours worked by its legal representatives. The Respondents (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis them. The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, issued the procedural order addressing the confidentiality request.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v.EPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs sought leave to inspect documents filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 30 CPC, which related to disclosure of turnover concerning patented PCA units. The Court constituted a Confidentiality Club to facilitate this inspection, subject to prescribed rules.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of 'HILTON HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED' and associated testimonials led customers to believe there was a direct connection with the plaintiff's established brand. Furthermore, the court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
igus GmbH v.Respondent
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, a German company based in Cologne, holds the patent directed to a compact cable guide for cleanroom applications with a sheath unit and clamping device. The defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the default ruling. The patent was filed on January 14, 2020, granted on March 20, 2024, and granted unitary effect on April 17, 2024.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for multiple claims in the audio device patent (11197084). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references, particularly Li and Fujita, renders the claimed earphone structure obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd filed a suit against Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr. alleging infringement of three specific patents related to camera lens assemblies. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants' Honor 200 series products infringe these patented technologies.
Mebigo Labs Private Limited v.Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Mebigo Labs Private Limited against Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and trademark dilution by the defendant's use of similar branding ('Story TV'). Furthermore, the court directed Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) to suspend specific infringing advertisements on Facebook and Instagram, protecting Mebigo Labs' digital content platform 'KUKU FM'.
Red Bull Ag v.M/S Bhavnagari Herbal Pharmacy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Red Bull Ag against M/S Bhavnagari Herbal Pharmacy & Ors. The court granted an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect, photograph, and potentially seize infringing goods from the defendants' premises. This decisive step allows the plaintiff to secure evidence of ongoing trademark misuse while the main suit proceeds.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Respondent
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_162/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 August 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 concerning App_33193/2025 (Request for a penalty payment, R. 354.4 RoP) concerning App_33935/2025 (request for the extens
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1. The applicant Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought preliminary measures against respondent BAG Diagnostics GmbH, who challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent. The presiding judge ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel, finding it appropriate given the substantive validity challenges raised by the respondent.
Moderna Norway AS, Moderna, Inc., Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna France SASU, Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns a Rule 262A application filed by multiple Moderna entities (Applicants/Defendants in the infringement actions/Claimants in the counterclaims) seeking to designate certain information in their statement of defence/counterclaim for revocation as confidential. The Respondents/Claimants in the infringement action, Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, reached agreement with the Applicants on the members of the confidentiality club and the terms of the confidentiality order. The Local Division The Hague issued the order based on the parties' agreed terms as set out in the confidentiality agreement submitted as exhibit G122.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a referral decision, arguing that proceeding with the IPR would duplicate the ongoing MDL concerning mercury‑control patents and waste resources. The brief cites efficiency concerns and prior PTAB rulings to request denial of institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under applicable statutes.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
A joint settlement between WEC Energy Group and BirchTech has prompted a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,926,218. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317 to dismiss WEC from the proceeding before any merits decision. The Board must now decide whether to grant the termination.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a mercury removal patent (10926218) after the Director remanded the case due to multiple concurrent petitions. The denial was based on following the Director's instruction to prioritize one petition over another.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp successfully challenged 26 claims of Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10926218) related to flue gas desulfurization, leading the PTAB to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board concluded that combining prior art references was an obvious application of known techniques in mercury removal technology.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Gurjinder Kaur & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition filed under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued directions to issue notices to all parties involved in the trademark matter. Furthermore, separate applications seeking interim relief (under CPC) were also addressed by setting timelines for filing replies and listing the matters before the Joint Registrar and the Court.
Nilkamal Crates And Containers & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Nilkamal Crates And Containers after a settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5. The settlement confirmed Nilkamal's ownership of its well-known 'NILKAMAL' trademark and required Defendant No. 5 to cease all activities related to manufacturing or trading deceptively similar goods, such as mattresses. Furthermore, Defendant No. 5 agreed to pay damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in a trademark opposition case filed by Bajaj Auto Limited against M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr. The court directed that notice be served to all parties, allowing four weeks for filing replies and rejoinders. The matter was subsequently scheduled for listing before the Joint Registrar (J) on September 9, 2025, and then before the Court again on November 19, 2025.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a Rectification Petition filed by M/S Prakash Pipes Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition sought the cancellation and removal of the trade mark 'PARKASHPOWER' (Registration No. 4798175) from the register. With no objection from certain respondents, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed, thereby rectifying the trademark registry.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.S. Tejinder Pal Singh & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited. The court issued directions to serve notices on the respective respondents, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders. Both the main opposition case and associated interim applications were listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Manpreet Gogia & Ors.
Bajaj Auto Limited filed a petition under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, initiating trademark opposition proceedings against certain respondents. The Delhi High Court issued directions to serve notices on all parties and set specific dates for the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court. This order marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge regarding the trademark rights.