Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3801–3900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Evolution Malta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 covering a roulette‑based wagering system. The petition relies on prior art references Kido, Yee, and Baron to argue anticipation and obviousness, and cites a district‑court finding of invalidity under Alice.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Intercurrency Software’s U.S. Patent 11,620,701, seeking to invalidate all sixteen claims as obvious over existing foreign‑exchange trading systems.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Light & Wonder against Evolution Malta, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'payout' including progressive jackpots.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Evolution Malta Limited's patent (10629024), challenging claims related to internet-based wagering. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'payout,' finding that prior art reference Kido anticipates several key claims.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder, Inc. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Evolution Malta Limited regarding roulette wagering systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation grounds (102) and key claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.
Novartis Ag v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered Indian patent (IN 283133) related to Ribociclib. The court proceeded with various interlocutory applications, including those regarding discovery and stay, while the defendant submitted that it is only engaged in permissible research and development.
Astellas Pharma Inc & Anr. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical Lucius Pharmaceuticals Lao Co Ltd & Ors.
Astellas Pharma Inc and its associates filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lucius Pharmaceutical for infringing their Indian Patent No. 292990, which covers the new chemical entity GILTERITINIB. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting an ad interim ex-parte injunction. This order restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing any product infringing the patent, including under the brand name LUCIGIL.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their registered Indian patent (No. 283133) related to Ribociclib. The court subsequently heard various interlocutory applications, including those regarding discovery, exemption from mediation, and an application for interim stay.
Celagenex Research India Pvt Ltd v.Pharmak & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its suit patents. The court examined the composition of the impugned products and found that they used exactly the same salt compositions as the plaintiffs' patented formulations. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited regarding its online gaming platforms. The court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (such as 'PLAYSHIP', 'RUMMY CULTURE') and copyrights related to their website layouts and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific defendants to compel Internet Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to block numerous identified infringing websites and applications.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Cipla Limited and the Union of India regarding a trademark application. Recognizing issues with traceability of previous notices, the court allowed Cipla to proceed by granting permission to file applications for the restoration and renewal of Trademark Application No. 1694972 within two weeks. The petitioner was also directed to complete necessary procedural filings within four weeks, effectively allowing the matter to move forward.
Cy International Private Limited & Anr. v.Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh Singh Auto Agencies & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an urgent suit filed by Cy International Private Limited against Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh regarding alleged counterfeiting of vehicle spare parts. The court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks and copyrighted packaging/trade dress (the 'YELLOW AND GOLD' design). However, the injunction was carefully tailored to permit the defendant to continue using their own specific registered mark in Class 12, balancing protection with commercial activity.
Mittal Electronrcs v.Shashi Kant Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mittal Electronrcs against Shashi Kant Garg & Ors. The court found that the defendants were using the identical registered trademark 'SUJATA' for allied and cognate goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion and the irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark until the final hearing.
Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in favor of Master Capital Services Limited regarding the misuse of its 'Master Trust' trademark. The court recognized that unidentified individuals were using the brand name on messaging platforms like WhatsApp for fraudulent investment schemes. Consequently, the court issued directions to block specific WhatsApp accounts and permanently freeze bank accounts linked to the alleged infringers, safeguarding the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Malti Gupta v.Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Malti Gupta against Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr. The court found a prima facie case existed regarding the infringement of the registered wordmark 'ROJGAR RESULT' and associated device mark. The defendants were immediately restrained from using the plaintiff's trademark on their competing websites, www.sarkariexam.com and www.sarkariresult.com, and were ordered to delete all infringing content.
Kickstarter, Pbc v.Kickstarter Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Kickstarter, Pbc, against Kickstarter Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that the defendant obtained registration of the identical mark 'KICKSTARTER' potentially in a dishonest manner. Given the irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the likelihood of market confusion, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the disputed trademark across all platforms.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action against Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited seeking full revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for dispensing viscous materials using a composite piston. The claimant argued that the patent lacked industrial application because the claimed invention would not comply with generally accepted laws of physics. The defendant, as patent proprietor, sought to defend the patent and proposed auxiliary requests to amend it. The Court addressed issues of industrial application under Article 57 EPC, the role of drawings in claim interpretation, and the proper order for addressing multiple auxiliary requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.
M/S Mishu Enterprises v.M/S Nakshatra 13
The plaintiff, M/S Mishu Enterprises, owns and uses the distinctive mark 'MACHHMANI' for selling sea stones and related jewellery. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, M/S Nakshatra 13, alleging unauthorized use of the same mark to deceive the public. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunctions.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
BPTP Limited v.Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of BPTP Limited against Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BPTP' to promote a non-existent project, causing potential market confusion and irreparable harm. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from advertising or dealing in services under the disputed marks and directed to immediately take down all infringing online content.
Mankind Agritech Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Agritech Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of registration for its trademark application no. 5617624 in Class 1. The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order, setting out the timeline and requirements for both parties to proceed with the appeal. This interim step allows the appellant to challenge the Registrar's decision regarding the trademark refusal.
More Retail Private Limited v.Begud Beverages Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by More Retail Private Limited seeking the cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by Begud Beverages Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement agreement between the parties, which stipulated the cancellation as part of the compromise of the underlying commercial suit. The court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed with the revocation.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 brought by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against three Advanced Bionics entities. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and the plaintiff requested admission of the withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and declined to order reimbursement of court fees due to extraordinary circumstances.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
UPC Decision UPC-000670 v.Respondent
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1, brought by Aylo Premium Ltd. against DISH Technologies L.L.C. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought full revocation of the patent, while the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and an Application to amend the Patent, including auxiliary requests. The headnote establishes that the Court can, if requested, limit the scope of revocation of a European patent to national parts validated in individual UPC Member States, with the key legal issues being added matter and claim interpretation.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
This case concerns a procedural order issued by the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against five Epson entities regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS filed an objection under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, challenging the court's jurisdiction on the ground that Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court was allegedly invalid. The dispute centers on whether Dolby's May 11, 2023 opt-out application, which listed the patent in suit on page 97, was properly withdrawn to bring the patent back under the court's jurisdiction.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Energeo Works India Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original order refused to grant a patent in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 202211052563.
Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Zeria Pharmaceutical appealed the refusal of its patent application for a novel intermediate compound (formula 5a). The Controller refused the grant, citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and falling within the scope of Section 3(d) due to prior art disclosures. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Junglee Games India Private Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
Junglee Games India Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against unknown parties operating deceptive websites. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the service of process, granting exemptions for advanced service due to the defendants' anonymous nature or the urgency of the relief sought. The court subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against online infringers.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Dinesh Sirvi And Ors
In a trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products 'Augsomention' and 'Sheoical-nx CCM,' the Delhi High Court issued several orders. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation while granting them liberty to file confidential sales documents in sealed cover for protection. Crucially, after both parties agreed to refer their dispute to mandatory mediation, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks until a settlement is reached.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Shree Ji Industries & Anr.
Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.
El Baik Food Systems Co Sa v.M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a dispute between El Baik Food Systems Co Sa and M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited regarding trademark, color combination, and packaging. The court noted that the defendants were preparing to file their written statement and would seek instructions on the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for renotification on August 5, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation.
Rajesh Daseja (Huf) Trading As D Rajkumar v.Simran Gaba & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a trademark dispute where Rajesh Daseja (Huf) sought the cancellation of Trademark No. 4776864 for the mark 'GSK/' from the Trade Marks Register. The court initiated the formal process, directing the petitioner to take necessary steps and issue notice to all respondents. This marks the commencement of substantive proceedings aimed at removing the disputed trademark.
Sharvan Kumar Mittal Trading As Girish Chemical Industries v.Janhvi Sharma Trading As Janhvi Chemical Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation and stay of Trademark No. 3017399, a device mark registered in Class 2. The court allowed the petitioner to proceed by directing notice to all respondents and setting key dates for filing replies and written synopses. Furthermore, the court granted an application to summon the complete registration record pertaining to related trademarks, ensuring transparency in the dispute.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.