Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3601–3700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.SCHNELL S.p.A., AWM s.r.l.
This is a procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 5 June 2025 in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters, including the admissibility of a new version of auxiliary request AR4, which was referred to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing. The parties were also granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate the value of the infringement action, the value of the counterclaim for revocation, and the amount of recoverable costs.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Krish-V Facility Management Services Private Limited v.Krishvi Projects Private Limited
In a significant commercial appeal concerning trademark infringement and passing off, the Karnataka High Court overturned an earlier dismissal by the Trial Court. Krish-V Facility Management Services successfully argued that procedural errors led to them being placed ex-parte in the original suit filed by Krishvi Projects Private Limited. The High Court set aside the adverse order, allowing both parties a chance to present their full pleadings and evidence on the merits of the trademark dispute, while crucially maintaining the existing temporary injunction.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation v.M/s.TKP Pictures
The Madras High Court heard an appeal regarding the ownership and infringement of copyrights related to the film 'MALLU VETTY MINOR'. The court found that the petitioner, M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, was the absolute owner of the copyrights. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against Respondent No.1 (TKP Pictures) for infringing these rights.
Vmi Holland B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vmi Holland B.V. appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their patent application, titled "Assembly for and method of making a tyre component," on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The High Court found the rejection order to be arbitrary, devoid of reasons, and lacking proper adjudication on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject a patent application for a lamp lightning control circuit. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to address their submissions and ignored evidence, thus violating natural justice. The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s challenge to Valtrus’s 7,748,005 patent succeeded, finding all twenty claims unpatentable for lack of written‑description support and obviousness over the McCarthy application and Gien micro‑kernel reference.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google proved all 21 claims of Valtrus’s ’454 patent are obvious over Colby, Eilert, and Jindal, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination before the proceeding is instituted.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s obviousness challenge succeeded, finding all 19 claims of Valtrus’s ’764 patent unpatentable over the Li and Edlund prior‑art references. The decision also denied Google’s motion to exclude exhibits and granted motions to seal.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s ’967 patent covering redundant power supplies. The petition relies on anticipation by Zak and obviousness over Susong, Chang, and Edelen, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01042, allowing Solventum Corporation to challenge Wound Healing Technologies Corp.'s patent 10639404 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.'s patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness regarding light fixture sealing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the '373 patent is unpatentable based on prior art reference Jurik.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Fena Private Limited v.Bajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.
ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna, Inc., v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. (Applicant) - 325 Binney Street - M
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.
M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to accept and process a renewal application for the mark 'NATURE'S WEALTH RESTORES HEALTH.' The court held that as long as the trade mark has not been formally removed from the register, the proprietor is entitled to seek renewal, setting aside the rejection order issued by the Registry. This decision provides crucial protection against administrative hurdles preventing legitimate trademark renewals.
M/S. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr v.The Additional Commissioner
Court decision.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks cancellation of all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’454 patent, asserting obviousness over Amidon and the Wong‑Gogic combination. The petition includes a supporting expert declaration and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The PTAB found all ten claims (12‑21) unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all twenty claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The decision finalizes the IPR with a sweeping cancellation.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
Moneywise Finvest Limited v.Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited
Moneywise Finvest Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited regarding the use of similar marks ('STOXKART' vs 'STOCKART') in the financial services sector. While the plaintiff initially sought an urgent ex-parte injunction due to delisting from Google Play, the court noted that this issue had been resolved by the plaintiff's appeal. The court subsequently allowed various procedural applications and scheduled the matter for further consideration, allowing the suit to proceed.
Vaibhav Agarwal v.Prabhakar Kumar & Ors.
Vaibhav Agarwal, claiming ownership of the 'Haldiram' trademark, challenged the actions of the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the Corporate Debtor, Haldiram Fincap Pvt. Ltd., citing potential IP infringement. The RP argued that the name was inherent to the corporate debtor and that Form G could not be withdrawn under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing the dispute's complexity, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter for mediation, encouraging an amicable resolution between the parties.
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights
Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy v.Mr.P.Moorthy
Petitioners sought to rectify/expunge a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic work photograph of a pump assembly, arguing that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act renders it invalid because the article was already registered as a design. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Pump Assembly itself, not the photograph, was registered as a design and that the photograph did not meet the requirements of a design.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 9 June 2025 APPLICANT Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB Widenmayerstr. 47, 80538 München, Germany represented by Moritz-Melchior Bloser PART
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google petitions an IPR to invalidate 16 claims of Telcom Ventures' 11,937,172 patent covering smartphone NFC financial transactions, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Waters, White, and Smith. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and seeks institution of the review.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
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 case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab and Geotab USA have filed an authorized response supporting the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Fractus's patent covering LTE Band 12 antennas. The petition asserts that Baliarda-543 anticipates all claims and that the priority document lacks written description support. The Board is urged to deny the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR that it says misapplied written‑description law and improperly stripped the ‘200 patent’s priority claim. The dispute centers on the meaning of “4G communication standard” and whether the parent application supports the claimed antenna language.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over Dou, Ciais‑Quadband and Nakano references and lack of written description for 4G standards.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's 8,198,686 patent, asserting obviousness over Aoyama, Akasaka, and Hsu823 prior art.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.