Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3301–3400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu
Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kindwaves Healthcare Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs favoring the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory of all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark 'KINDWAVES' at the defendant's premises. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the matter, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation and granted exemption from advance service, allowing the suit to proceed swiftly.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to consolidate two related commercial suits, CS(COMM) 569/2025 and CS(COMM) 130/2025. Furthermore, the court issued detailed directions requiring the defendant to file extensive documentation, including three years of accounts, Income Tax Returns, and agreements pertaining to the trademark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD'. This order sets the stage for a deeper factual examination regarding the alleged trademark usage.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:06:47 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:09:50 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:11:2
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:07:34 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:13:46 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:14:09
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Nic
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs involving Netlist patents, leaving the PTAB’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent unpatentable. Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the claims were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck. The Board’s reasoning hinged on motivation‑to‑combine and claim construction of “memory module.”
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the Board finding the claims obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 9,235,428 before the Board institutes the case, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and dismissal would save resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving Sinclair Pharma and others versus Hydrafacial, staying the proceeding after the ITC affirmed the claims’ validity and commercial success.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2026‑00018 the PTAB held that Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent obvious over a combination of Kim, Rajan, Riho and Wyman. The Board adopted the district‑court claim constructions and rejected Netlist’s arguments about non‑DRAM limitations and collision risks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck. All 30 challenged claims were declared unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum issued on July 29, 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPR and PGR cases lacking an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined rulings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition challenging Netlist’s 12,373,366 DIMM patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over older memory‑module art. The petition seeks cancellation of all 38 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Ricky Rubber Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Ricky Rubber Industries challenging the Trade Marks Registry's rejection of an application for rectification. The petitioner sought to correct a minor typographical error—a wrong registration number—in a recordal form (FORM TM-P). The court ruled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to dilute substantive rights, directing the Registrar to accept the rectification application and make the necessary amendments.
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd., an Ireland-based patent licensing company, sued several entities of the Xiaomi group for infringement of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless energy receivers, based on the use of such devices in smartphones including the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the patent proprietor defended the patent in auxiliary requests. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed, among other things, the admissibility of a high number of auxiliary requests with a narrow core, the prohibition of intermediate generalization under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, and the relevance of a prior art citation concerning near-field communication antenna tuning as opposed to wireless power receivers.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, with Aesculap AG as claimant and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) as defendant. The order addressed two procedural questions: how to treat a defendant's absence from the oral hearing when it had previously informed the Registry of its non-attendance, and what level of specificity is required when contesting the claimant's substantiated infringement allegations. The Court ruled that a non-appearing defendant who had informed the Registry would be treated as relying solely on its written submissions, and that defendants must specifically address the claimant's concrete factual allegations rather than relying on general statements about the burden of proof.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Respondent
This preliminary order was issued in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2437696, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. The Claimant sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case, requesting that its infringement claims be based on the B2 version of the patent rather than the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, reasoning that under Article 68 EPC, the B2 version had retroactive effect from the original grant date, meaning the B2 text was always the operative version. The revised Statement of Claim reflecting the correct B2 text was admitted into the proceedings.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac’s IPR against Champion Power’s generator patent continues after Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settle and exit the case. The Board granted motions to terminate the settling parties and keep the settlement confidential.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,143,145 and jointly request that the settlement be treated as business confidential information. The petition also seeks MWE's withdrawal from the proceeding.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.
Vijay v.Havells India Limited
This order addresses procedural matters concerning a suit filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Vijay, which involves claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The petitioner (Vijay) is defending this suit, and the court directed that the petition be formally registered as CM (Main) (IPD) to ensure proper handling within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Array Biopharma Inc & Anr.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN304285 before the Delhi High Court. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner regarding document submission and extensions, while formally initiating the main revocation proceedings.
Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited
Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Zepto Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Zepto Private Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific trademark registration (No. 2773518) from Class 9. The court granted procedural directions, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and setting timelines for both parties to submit replies, rejoinders, and a combined written synopsis. This order moves the case forward in the process of challenging the validity or use of the registered mark.
Orient Electric Limited v.R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.FUJIFILM Corporation
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC.
This case concerns an application by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS against The Walt Disney Company and several related entities regarding four European patents. The dispute arose after the applicants obtained an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) on May 27, 2025, and sought to serve it on the respondents' representatives via the special electronic lawyer mailbox (beA). The respondents' representatives refused to issue a confirmation of receipt, claiming improper service, while simultaneously communicating that their clients would not seek an Anti-Suit Injunction. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided over by Judge Tochtermann, addressed the refusal to accept service under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney Company entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. concerning EP3259902, applied for a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant opposed the request, arguing that all defendants should submit their own corresponding applications or alternatively be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is issued. The President of the Court of First Instance ruled that the position of all parties potentially affected by the requested change must be heard in the context of such an application.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, has brought suit against Texas Instruments Incorporation and two of its German subsidiaries. The order, issued by judge-rapporteur Böttcher, sets out preliminary views and questions for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing issues including the requirements for defending dependent claims, claim construction regarding the term 'interrupt,' and the interpretation of 'directly coupled' in the relevant patent features.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.
M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering Works v.Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry against Hindustan Technocast regarding the trademark 'BADAL'. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's registration was obtained through fraud and fabricated documents. However, the court held that while anomalies in the respondent's documentation were noted, the petitioner failed to establish the veracity of their claims on the face of it. Consequently, the cancellation of the long-standing mark could not be granted without a thorough evidentiary test before the Trial Court.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Jai Shree Krishna Cement & Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application filed by UltraTech Cement, finding that the defendants were willfully disobeying a prior court order restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks. To enforce compliance and stop the continuing wrong, the Court ordered the attachment of the bank accounts belonging to two defendant partners for a period of six months. This action underscores the judiciary's willingness to use stringent measures under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC to protect registered well-known trademarks against persistent infringement.
Sunil Niranjan Shah v.Vijay Bahadur
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Niranjan Shah against Vijay Bahadur. Crucially, the court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the defendant's suspicious conduct and history of similar infringing activities through related parties. The court also directed the defendant to appear physically on the next date of hearing, signaling continued judicial scrutiny over the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Caremankind Hospital Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Caremankind Hospital Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks ('MANKIND'/'CAREMANKIND') in relation to similar services. This crucial early ruling protects Mankind Pharma's established brand equity while the main suit proceeds.
Lt Foods Limited v.Murli Flour Mills P Ltd
Lt Foods Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Murli Flour Mills P Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, a major player in the rice and food category, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks 'DAAWAT' and 'DAWAT' by using an identical mark for premium 'Jeera'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (Claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. (Defendants). The Claimant valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the sales volume, machine prices, and royalty rate. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the conclusion of the oral hearing.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 784/CHE/2012 for an 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1-D3, which were primarily related to four-wheeler vehicles. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Pankaj Yadav v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pankaj Yadav against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought intervention regarding alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by a third respondent manufacturing a similar product. However, the court found that the petitioner lacked an individual grievance or public interest standing to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, leading to the petition's dismissal.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.
Adventia Pharma, S.L & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adventia Pharma appealed against the Assistant Controller's order dated January 29, 2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117035025. The court allowed applications for exemption and condonation of delay before directing parties to file synopsis and list the case.
Gruner Ag v.Guangxi Ramway Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for alleged patent infringement. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and replication. Various interim applications regarding stay, additional documents, and directions to Customs were also addressed.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Soni Hospitality Services & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Moti Mahal Delux Management Services and Soni Hospitality Services based on an amicable settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('Moti Mahal', 'Tandoori Trail') and agreed to cease all use of confusingly similar marks, hand over promotional materials, and adhere strictly to the terms of a new franchise agreement. This judgment highlights how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.
Chet Chamnitiravanich v.Organovedics Through Its Partners Ms. Sonia and Mr. Nitin Gangadhar and Ors
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief to the plaintiff, Chet Chamnitiravanich. The court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory and seize counterfeit 'MENA' soap products being manufactured and exported by the defendants. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of stopping counterfeiting, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory advance service requirements against key defendants.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.