Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3201–3300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.
Lacoste S.A. v.Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited and others for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to its trademark LACOSTE and associated labels. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using identical or deceptively similar marks on goods like tags, buttons, and packaging materials. The court decreed the suit in favor of Lacoste.
UPC Decision UPC-000540 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities before the Unified Patent Court Local Division Mannheim for infringement of EP 3 511 174 B1, a European patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The proceedings concerning the UK part of the patent were separated following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court held that while it has jurisdiction to decide infringement of the UK part of a European bundle patent, it cannot revoke the UK part with erga omnes effect, and the defendants may raise invalidity as a defense with inter partes effect only.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This procedural order concerns two related revocation cases before the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, involving European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed procedural matters following an interim conference, including an opposition filed by bioMérieux France, confirmation of exhibits, and the management of an excessive number of invalidity attacks. The court directed bioMérieux to narrow its inventive step attacks and focus on specific added matter arguments, while structuring the upcoming oral hearing and setting deadlines for further submissions.
UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Dr Reddy's Srl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi B.V. v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.
PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by the first respondent, PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The Mannheim Local Chamber denied the postponement request, holding that the inherent urgency of interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for a postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not qualify as such. The court further offered the parties an opportunity to raise objections to the first respondent's participation via video link by July 24, 2025.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.
Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s. v.Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary sur‑reply rebuts Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the patent’s “association information” requirement is not satisfied by Samsung’s prior‑art references. The patent owner emphasizes the need for a storage element that actually stores the association data, which Samsung’s citations lack.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01308 involving Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., allowing the dispute over patent 11277650 to proceed to trial.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.
E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.
M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali
In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited v.Nishtu Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Central Division Paris Seat Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 16/07/2025 No. App_25881/2025 UPC_CFI_484/2025 Claimant (Applicant): KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH Schellingstraße 35, 80799 Muni
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Husqvarna AB filed an infringement action on 16 April 2025 against POSITEC Germany GmbH concerning European patent EP 3978304 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. POSITEC subsequently applied on 23 June 2025 to change the language of the proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, citing the linguistic profile of its parent group's legal and technical staff and the burden of conducting proceedings in German. Husqvarna opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order on 16 July 2025 addressing the language of the proceedings, establishing that fairness requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the defendant's working environment and communication channels.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.
Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech SE, Promosome LLC, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer AB, Pfizer SAS v.Promosome LLC, The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU, VALINEA ENERGIE
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’ap
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano ORDINANZA del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado Divisione Locale di Milano depositata il 15.7.2025 RICORRENTE PIRELLI TYRE s.p.a. RESISTENTI 1. KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 2. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. Brevetto In
UPC Decision UPC-000554 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing) in a patent infringement action brought by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against ASUSTek entities concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The presiding judge ordered an in-person hearing in English on July 21, 2025, to be held entirely in private due to the confidential nature of the FRAND topics to be discussed. The parties were directed to submit a participant list by July 18, 2025.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,632,751 patent, seeking cancellation of 20 claims covering dummy‑via dual‑damascene methods. The petition relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01302, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC.
Valary Lab Private Ltd v.G1 Therapeutics Inc & Anr.
The petitioner, Valary Lab Private Ltd, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 434029 and an injunction against threats related to its alleged infringement. The court allowed applications for additional documents and granted notice to all parties. The case is set for re-notification on November 12, 2025.
Elofic Industries Limited v.Mobis India Limited
The Delhi High Court consolidated two commercial suits (CS(COMM) 17/2016 and CS(COMM) 363/2018) involving Elofic Industries Limited and Mahle Filter Systems India Private Limited versus Mobis India Limited. The court proceeded to frame detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the plaintiff's use of the defendant's trademarks qualifies as 'honest use' under Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further issues addressed the maintainability of the suit and the possibility of granting permanent injunction against criminal complaints.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected its application for a patent related to aripiprazole microspheres. The core contention raised by Otsuka was that the rejection order lacked any reasoned justification, failing to discuss the invention or adequately address prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The Calcutta High Court agreed with this assessment, finding the impugned order unreasoned and unsustainable.
Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning trademark oppositions, where Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite pending proceedings. The court recognized that the delay in disposal was unjustified given the history of the applications and oppositions. Consequently, the High Court issued a mandate directing the Registrar of Trademarks to conclude both opposition cases within a strict three-month timeframe.
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to compel the Registrar of Trademarks to decide an opposition petition and trademark application within a fixed timeframe. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition because the underlying matter had already been decided by the Trademark Office on July 9, 2025, rendering the petitioner's request moot.
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
Google Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Google LLC challenging the refusal to register its trademark 'OUTLINE'. The core issue involved potential conflicts with existing trademarks. Recognizing that two pending rectification petitions, which directly impacted the dispute, were lodged in different registries (Chennai and Ahmedabad), the court took a procedural step. It directed the transfer of these two related rectification petitions to the High Court for consolidation with the main appeal, ensuring a unified adjudication of all interconnected trademark matters.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Respondent
1 di 5 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 770/2024 Act. n. 64425/2024 App. n. 26266/2025 ordinanza n. 26742/2025 depositata il 14.7.2025 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. CONVENUTI 1) Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd. 2) China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automot
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interlocutory hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000, reserved the decision on the admissibility of a particular annex for the oral hearing, and scheduled the oral hearing for October 16, 2025. The order also addressed procedural matters regarding patent amendment requests and the applicable cost ceiling.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01289 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public policy and efficiency reasons for early termination.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Regeneron defends the PTAB’s discretionary denial of Fresenius’s request to review the denial of institution for an IPR targeting its aflibercept biosimilar patent. The response argues that Fresenius ignored the controlling Fintiv factors, misapplied settled‑expectations, and raised meritless constitutional claims.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Regeneron’s biosimilar patent. The petition argues the Board’s “settled expectations” rule and discretionary denial are unlawful and harm drug‑price competition.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court decision.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’249 patent covering packet‑forwarding nodes. The petition relies on the Shimizu patent application and the BGP‑4 standard (RFC‑4271) as prior art to argue obviousness.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Cloud Byte’s cooling‑structure patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of inter‑ partes review and cancellation of the claims.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate nine claims of Cloud Byte’s ‘632 patent covering server‑cooling abnormality detection. The petition relies on the combination of two prior‑art references, Hira and Shiga, to argue obviousness.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SoundClear’s 11,244,675 patent covering voice‑controlled content generation. The petition asserts obviousness over Raitio/Fahlman and Ocampo/Fahlman combinations for claims 1‑7.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’177 patent covering network flow tracing. The petition relies on obviousness over Rijhsinghani and combinations with RFC‑5474, Lean, and a networking textbook.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827, which covers location‑based virtual gameplay. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over the Kolo and Zyda references under 35 U.S.C. §103 and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.