Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3401–3500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,077,791 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts that the claims are overly broad and lack both written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Merck seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of all claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sandpiper CDN’s 8,595,778 patent covering video‑stream authorization, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Xiaomi for allegedly infringing their patented technology, 'A Communication Device Finder System', which is listed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court dismissed both applications for interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of infringement and noting an inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. v.Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. was infringing its patent related to textile machinery. The suit sought an injunction, based on products being imported and used in Pune, Maharashtra. However, the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the Bombay High Court's purview. Consequently, the court allowed the application for return of the plaint, dismissing the amendment request as well.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
M/S Swagath v.Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.
Staar Surgical Company v.Jagrat Natvar Dave Trading As Polymer Technologies International & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a rectification application filed by Staar Surgical Company against the trademark 'IPC L' under No. 2511431. The court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Registry to serve notice, the applicant failed to appear or ensure proper service of process. Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of prosecution, though the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the case if difficulties are overcome.
Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Munich issued an order on a procedural application by the Renault Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3726780. The Renault entities argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used for reasons of fairness. The Claimant, Avago Technologies, opposed the application. The order was issued pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with the President providing a headnote on the assessment of language change applications.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' brief dated June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing the temporary unavailability of the case management system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The defendants consented to the extension. The presiding judge rejected the request, holding that there was no legal interest in granting it because Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure already provides for an automatic extension of time in cases of temporary CMS unavailability.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for reimbursement of court fees following the settlement of an appeal in a patent revocation action. Tandem Diabetes had filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes regarding EP 2 196 231, which was dismissed by the Central Division Paris. After the parties settled, Tandem Diabetes sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that, since the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement, Tandem Diabetes was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees.
Appellant*** v.ORTHOAPNEA S.L., VIVISOL B BV
1 Beslissing van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht betreffende een verzoek tot intrekking van het beroep uitgesproken op 3 juli 2025 INHOUDSINDICATIE De begroting van de te vergoeden proceskosten na de intrekking van een vordering of beroep is overeenkomstig R. 2
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff Headwater Research LLC, asserting infringement of European Patent EP 3 110 072, sought security for costs from the defendants, while the defendants (Motorola entities and Flextronics) sought security from the plaintiff in connection with their counterclaims for revocation. The court held that even though a defendant in an infringement suit is formally the claimant in a revocation counterclaim, they may under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP demand security for the costs incurred or to be incurred through that counterclaim, as otherwise the defendant would be unreasonably restricted in their defense.
Advanced Bionics AG v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This case concerns an appeal by Tiroler Rohre GmbH against a cost assessment order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning EP 2 839 083. Tiroler Rohre had applied for provisional measures against SSAB but withdrew the application after the court indicated concerns during the oral hearing. The Local Division ordered Tiroler Rohre to pay costs, and SSAB subsequently sought detailed cost assessment. Tiroler Rohre appealed, arguing that a separate cost assessment procedure was inadmissible because the cost decision had already been made together with the withdrawal decision under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics GmbH v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,119,463 filed by Ascend Elements against Duesenfeld GmbH.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme‑based contraceptive patent, arguing that the claims lack sufficient written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the vast, undefined genus of modified PH20 polypeptides and the impossibility of testing all variants.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Interstellar Inc. submits a response urging the PTAB to deny Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00696. The owner contends the Director’s discretion is broad, there is no six‑year bright‑line rule for settled expectations, and the petitioner’s arguments are repetitive and unsupported.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB institution decision, arguing the filing is timely and requesting correction of the document type and fee payment assistance.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPR institution decisions after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity issues in district court. The parties may file brief arguments, and the proceedings are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied AMD and Pensando's request for rehearing of a Director discretionary denial in IPR2025-00478 concerning patent 8,924,596. The order affirms the original decision without further review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,049,652 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of key mutants. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Array Biopharma, Inc & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN304285 ('ERBB Inhibitors') granted to Respondent No. 1 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding filing documents and extensions of time.
Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.
Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal case, Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr. The court allowed the appellant to withdraw a previously filed review petition. Crucially, the court also condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the main appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025). Following these procedural orders, the case was listed for final hearing on May 27, 2025.
Network 18 Media And Investments Ltd v.Tv Today Network Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of trademark cancellation petitions filed by Network 18 Media against Tv Today Network Ltd. and others. The resolution was reached through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 on July 1, 2025. Both parties confirmed their adherence to the terms of this agreement, leading the Court to close the proceedings without further litigation.
M/S Avriva Solutions & Ors. v.Avriva Skintech Private Limited & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed petitions filed by defendants against the trial court's orders in a trademark infringement suit. The court upheld the grant of an interim injunction, finding that the defendants were actively infringing the plaintiff's 'AVRIVA' trademark. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the plaint rejected on procedural grounds related to directorial authority, confirming the validity of the suit.
Sahil Sachdeva & Anr. v.Ayush Dhingra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit, granting plaintiffs several procedural exemptions crucial for urgent relief. Notably, the court exempted the plaintiffs from providing advance service to defendants, recognizing the risk that defendants might destroy evidence. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to inventory and seize infringing products and inspect relevant books of accounts, setting the stage for immediate enforcement against alleged trademark infringers.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., ESTHETEC SAS, Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l.
Quantificare S.A. brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 against five defendants, who in turn filed a revocation counterclaim. The Chamber addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs combined infringement and revocation proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Chamber ordered a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), and instructed the Rapporteur to request the assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Gunwal Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Gunwal Sports concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The court recognized the public interest risk associated with consumer deception regarding the 'HERO' brand merchandise. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without pre-litigation mediation or advance service, enabling the immediate appointment of a Local Commissioner for search and seizure of evidence.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Sunil Gupta
New Balance Athletics Inc. successfully secured several critical preliminary orders in its suit against Sunil Gupta regarding trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing immediate legal action. Crucially, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEW BLANCO' and 'BALANCE'. Furthermore, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence and counterfeit products at the defendant's premises.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V., *** v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl
YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.
products and ideas india pvt ltd v.nilkamal limited
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Nilkamal Limited and others for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the 'STELLA' mark on induction cooktops, despite having a license to use 'STELLADEXIN'. The plaintiff claimed prior registration and significant sales under the 'STELLADEXIN' mark.
Chandan Sadija & Vikas Nahlani v.Neeraj Jewellery & Nishant Gupta
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The petitioners argued that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as the original trademark originated outside Chhattisgarh. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that the defendants were operating within Chhattisgarh and that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their cause of action and valued the suit above the required threshold for commercial court jurisdiction.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
Acer Computer GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB for public access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings UPC_CFI_181/2024 (related to European Patent EP2661892 owned by Nokia Technologies Oy), in which HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. was the claimant and Nokia Technologies Oy was the defendant. The main proceedings had been concluded on 27 March 2025 following the withdrawal of the action. The applicant sought access to better understand how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings, arguing that such access supports professional advice by UPC representatives. The defendant Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a specific personal interest and had not sufficiently demonstrated a general interest justifying access.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon and its AWS affiliate filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against DivX’s 11,611,785 video‑streaming patent. The Board has not yet institutioned the case, and DivX does not oppose the withdrawal. The motion seeks termination of the proceeding for efficiency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited
The appeal challenges a previous judgment where the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent questioned the maintainability of this appeal.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790, filed by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as granted and through eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address the determination of the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, procedural questions regarding patent amendments, and clarification of the parties' requests.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.