Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3901–4000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Central Division (Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The court directed the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Request for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, beginning with the defendant's response of February 28, 2025. The order was issued to allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the reply concerning the patent amendment request of May 22, 2025, while reserving the question of whether a separate request and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Ihhr Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v.Avirup Sircar
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation in a trademark opposition case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, noting that extensive prior communication and action had already taken place between the parties regarding the mark 'ANANDA RESORTS'. Consequently, both parties were directed to participate in pre-litigation mediation before proceeding with the main litigation.
Castrol Limited v.Govind Mohan Sharma
In a matter concerning trademark recognition, Castrol Limited sought to establish its 'CASTROL' and 'ACTIV' marks as well-known trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff presented detailed arguments supporting this claim. While the court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the well-known status, it granted an adjournment to the defendant for further submissions, indicating that the matter remains active in litigation.
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed an appeal seeking to quash a previous opposition order related to trademark application no. 6109894 in Class 30. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, allowing both the appellant (Parle) and respondent no. 2 sufficient time—six weeks for synopsis filing and subsequent reply periods—to prepare their arguments before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA v.Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
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 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
This case before the Paris Local Division concerned a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. The court addressed three key issues: the admissibility of amended patent claims (rejecting the defendant's added-matter objection based on alleged intermediate generalization), the procedural framework for objections under Article 34 UPCA regarding the territorial scope of UPC decisions (holding such objections fall outside R.19 RoP), and the claimant's request for infringement remedies in Poland. While the Poland-related claim was admissible following the BSH v Electrolux precedent, the court found it unfounded on the merits due to the claimant's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding specific infringing acts in that territory.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited
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 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. Both parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure to allow them to focus on finalizing ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur granted the stay, formalizing the provisional stay that had already taken effect by email on 21 May 2025, and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant sought to file a further written pleading to respond to new arguments raised by the defendants in their rejoinder, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed this request on 1 April 2025. The claimant then filed an application for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order and rejected the application for panel review, finding the request for a further written submission unfounded.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The PTAB denied Empower Clinic Services' request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025‑01024, which challenges Eli Lilly's patent 9,474,780. The institution remains denied, ending the challenge.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of its discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00975 and related cases. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the challenges.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH
This is an appeal order concerning a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The appellant Knaus Tabbert AG sought to stay enforcement of a first-instance order, arguing that the plaintiffs' financial situation required security for enforcement. The Court of Appeal held that the ordering of security for enforcement lies within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that a defendant must raise facts justifying such security already at first instance, so that a request for suspensive effect generally cannot rely on the plaintiff's financial situation if this could have been raised earlier.
Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v.Respondent
Siemens sought an order requiring Hologic to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000 each for the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation) in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 352 431 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the request, holding that Siemens failed to meet its burden of providing evidence of the applicable foreign law and its application regarding enforcement of cost orders in Massachusetts, USA, where Hologic is domiciled.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V. (defendant)
This order rectifies a clerical error in a prior revocation decision concerning European patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The earlier decision had incorrectly referenced the patent as EP 1 994 067 B1 throughout its text. The Court corrected the patent number on its own motion, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and several healthcare distributors. The order addresses an application by Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited
Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Vikas Gupta / Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute over the common name 'NEHA' used in the personal care sector. The Plaintiffs, Neha Herbals, claimed infringement and passing off against Sahni Cosmetics, which uses the mark for creams. While the court acknowledged the Defendant's prior use of the mark for creams, it ultimately found that the Plaintiffs had established continuous use and valid registrations for their goods (Mehandi). Consequently, the suit seeking damages was dismissed, but the cancellation petitions filed by the Defendant were also rejected.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its 4G/5G uplink synchronization patent. The petition argues the “settled expectations” rule was misapplied and that material examiner error and the breadth of related patents merit Board review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
Greenchemicals S.R.L. v.DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision in IPR2025‑00951, citing claim‑construction issues. The petition was filed by Generac and co‑petitioners against Champion Power’s generator patent.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Iono Pharma’s epinephrine prodrug patent. Iono Pharma argues the request fails statutory standards and should be denied.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR on its epinephrine prodrug patent, arguing factual errors and improper reliance on settled‑expectation criteria.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.