Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3101–3200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Meta Platforms' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01333, leaving the original decision that the IPR was not instituted unchanged.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 27 claims of a dual‑damascene interconnect patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds for each claim group and requests the Board to institute the review.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’897 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based exploit prediction.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01307 involving Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Jaishankar
The plaintiff, Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., claimed that its registered trademark 'HANS CHAAP' was being infringed and passed off by the defendants in relation to tobacco products. Despite initial interim injunctions, the suit proceeded despite non-appearance of several defendants. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants 2 to 5 and awarding costs.
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
The petition challenges the action of Respondent No.1 (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) for accepting a Counter Statement filed by Respondent No.2 beyond the statutory two-month period stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that the matter would be heard ex-parte against Respondent No.2 due to non-appearance despite service.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Upgrad Education Private Limited v.Lavangiri Ansar Basha And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Upgrad Education Private Limited against Lavangiri Ansar Basha and others. The court found that the defendant was actively making false, malicious, and disparaging statements about the plaintiff's brand 'upGrad' on social media platforms, including using the trademark with derogatory hashtags like 'scam' and 'fraud'. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from further defamatory posts until the next hearing, while the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had filed his application on 27 March 2025, well after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the transitional period is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception, and that a clerical error by the applicant's paralegal department did not justify reinstating his right to registration.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Décision de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE (DEMANDERESSE DANS LA PROCEDURE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE I
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the arrangement of private interpreters at an upcoming oral hearing in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants, Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own cost to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge ruled that the interpreters could participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the main courtroom 212, which lacks interpreter booths, and rejected the remainder of the request.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed on 18 April 2025, outside the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, as required by Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The applicant argued that Rule 12.1 only defines when a qualification is deemed appropriate and does not impose a filing deadline. The President upheld the Registrar's decision, confirming that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 DECISION de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE DANS LA PROCEDURE D’APPEL APL_2052/2025 ET INTIMEE DANS LA PROCEDU
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1, in which the plaintiff Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG filed a patent infringement action against CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, and the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both parties filed requests on July 14, 2025 to withdraw their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the partial reimbursement of unused court fees to the plaintiff.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 21 February 2025, after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules had expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related personal circumstances did not justify the delayed submission.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged an order of refusal dated 30.05.2023 passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order summarily rejected the application without examining the submissions made in response to the First Examination Report (FER).
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.
Upgrid Solutions Private Limited v.Vikas Pal And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Upgrid Solutions against Vikas Pal and others. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial evidence, including GPS-tagged photographs of unauthorized swap stations and true-caller screenshots, citing the need for substantial justice. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of protecting its 'Battery Smart' brand, the Court granted an interim injunction through the appointment of Receivers to secure the plaintiff's assets and prevent further infringement.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
Astral Ltd v.Grasim Industries Ltd
Astral Ltd successfully reached an amicable settlement with Grasim Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to building materials. The court accepted the joint application, leading to a decree that incorporates all the detailed settlement terms. Under these terms, Grasim recognized Astral's exclusive rights while agreeing to adopt a new label and cease using the impugned mark in specific ways, effectively resolving the dispute.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH for revocation of an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 of the EPG Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether the rapporteur could retroactively change the starting date of the deadline for initiating main proceedings, given that the court-appointed expert had delivered the inspection report later than originally anticipated. The court held that while the length of the deadline is fixed, the starting date is within the court's discretion and may be modified, particularly when the expert submits the report late.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. before the Court of Appeal. Philips had filed the application by mistake, as cost assessment applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal under Rule 265(1) of the Rules of Procedure without requiring a hearing of Belkin, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
TIRU v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_132/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 22/07/2025 REQUERANT (Demandeur à la procédure au principal) TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté par Cyrille AMAR, cabinet Amar Goussu
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited
This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.
Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Sabine A
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 Concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Caroline
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich following a FRAND interim hearing concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, set out directions for the parties to exchange further written submissions on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file further submissions by August 11, 2025 and Lenovo to respond by September 1, 2025. The order also addressed scheduling matters, including a video conference interim hearing on September 25, 2025 and the confirmation of the oral hearing on November 19, 2025.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 202117018914. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal due to an inadvertent error in filing.
Haveli Restaurants And Resorts Ltd. v.Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd. challenging the rejection of its opposition against a trademark application for 'AMRITSARI HAVELI.' The core issue was whether the Appellant was properly served with the Counter Statement, leading to the Opposition being deemed abandoned. While the court allowed applications related to delay and record summoning, it proceeded to issue notice for written submissions on the main appeal, indicating that the matter is moving toward a substantive hearing.
Asif Ahmad Najar v.Yasir Farooq Shirgugurie & Anr.
Asif Ahmad Najar filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an existing trademark registration held by Respondent No. 1, which bears the name 'Baker's Hub'. The petitioner also sought a declaration establishing his prior and rightful use of the mark. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their replies within four weeks, setting the matter for further hearing in November 2025.
M/S Nature Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
M/S Nature Magic World challenged the Registrar of Trademarks' failure to recognize a Deed of Assignment that transferred two trademarks, 'COLORESSENCE' and 'COLORESSENCE eyes spy', to them. The Petitioner argued that despite the assignment, the records incorrectly showed the predecessor company as the owner. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar to consider the Petitioner's representations for correcting the ownership status within four weeks, taking into account a no-objection from the original proprietor.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.