Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4001–4100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., regarding a dual-fuel generator control system. The Board found sufficient showing of obviousness and anticipation across multiple grounds using prior art references like DuroMax and De Vries.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited v.James Glendye And Co Limited and Ors
The Calcutta High Court, in its Intellectual Property Rights Division, admitted the plaint filed by Tirupati Vancom Private Limited against James Glendye and Co Limited. The court granted leave under relevant provisions due to the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for a consent decree in the dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark infringement concerning 'PEPFIZ' and 'MINOZ'. Key terms include Defendants recognizing Plaintiff's exclusive rights, agreeing to cease use of deceptively similar marks like 'PEPFIX' and 'MINOZIL', and changing the product name from 'MINOZIL' to 'MINODYL'. The court partially decreed the suit based on these binding settlement terms.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Article 53(f) of the UPCA allows the Court to perceive the functionality of the embodiments (patented and attacked) and comprises all activities detailed in Articles 170(1)(c) and 170(2)(f) and (g) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore, not only inspections. According to Article 53(f) UPCA, the Court may compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality. If a party offers to exhibit the object in accordance with Rule 1
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademark And Anr.
Andreas Gutzeit appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which rejected his patent application, "Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Application," primarily on grounds of non-compliance with Section 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether the amendment—specifically changing the claim from a method to a system—was permissible under the law. The Calcutta High Court found serious infirmities in the Controller's order, noting that it failed to properly assess if the amendments broadened the scope beyond the original specification. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the merits.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.
Nocil Ltd v.Finorchem Ltd And Anr
The defendants filed an application seeking revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The dispute involves allegations of patent infringement and breach of confidentiality concerning the manufacturing process of 4-ADPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded urgency based on a holistic reading of the plaint.
Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd v.Yash Tiwari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed key issues in the trademark infringement suit filed by Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd against Yash Tiwari & Anr. The core dispute revolves around whether the defendants breached an MoU and infringed upon the 'Salestown' trademark used for a CRM software. Crucially, the court clarified that while injunctions are sought regarding 'Salestown,' the defendants remain free to use any other CRM software in their business.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart v.Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
Microtex Energy Private Limited v.Microtek International Private Limited and Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 116/2025, where the petitioner sought the cancellation of the trademark 'MICROTEK TECHNOLOGY WE LIVE' (No. 3482800). The court issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. Several ancillary applications regarding document submission and procedural matters were also disposed of by the court.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ram Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the dispute between Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited and Ram Kumar & Anr., addressing both rectification and interim stay applications. The court granted an interim stay on the registration of trademark No. 5849311, recognizing the petitioner's prior rights concerning similar packaging and marks (JK/JKLC). Furthermore, the court directed the initiation of formal proceedings for the rectification of the impugned mark in Class 19, setting clear timelines for notice and response from all parties.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The appeal challenged the rejection order, citing exceptional delays in the patent process. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, for leave to amend its case pursuant to Rule 263 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought leave to introduce new submissions regarding the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged further gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' as additional attacked embodiments, arguing these were triggered by the Defendants' prior-use right defence. The Defendants (Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH) opposed the application, contending that leave was necessary and should not be granted because the Claimant should have included these submissions in its Statement of Claim given prior US proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission in response to the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) opposed the request as an inadmissible repeat of a previously dismissed application. The court held the request admissible due to special circumstances, partially postponed the final decision on admission until the oral hearing, and otherwise rejected the request, granting the claimant two weeks to submit a written pleading strictly limited to the issue of Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0.
FLSmidth Inc. v.Metso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Sportshub.Stream & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit against various defendants and websites alleging widespread copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming of its content. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advanced service requirements concerning regulatory authorities like DoT and MEITY. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint as a formal suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against infringing websites and domains.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Alivus Life Sciences Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 282654 related to Ivacaftor. The court initially allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation, and subsequently passed an interim order granting ex-parte injunctions against the defendant regarding the use and sale of the patented product.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Novo Nordisk A/S
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents (Novo Nordisk A/S) and set timelines for filing replies, while also disposing of several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors, Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The court found the rejection order unsustainable due to misinterpretation of previous orders and noted an exceptional delay in the process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing fresh adjudication by another Controller.
M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited v.Sukanya Gupta
The petitioner, M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited, filed a petition to set aside an arbitral award against Mrs. Sukanya Gupta, alleging breach of contract and misuse of intellectual property related to beauty pageants. The petitioner claimed damages for her running a competing pageant shortly after the agreement expired. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding no patent illegality in the arbitrator's findings.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected Torrent Pharmaceuticals' oral request to pass a permanent injunction and decree against Indorbit Pharmaceuticals based on passing off and copyright infringement. Although the defendants failed to file written statements, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established its prior adoption and usage of the new trade dress (SHELCAL-500) since September 2022. The judgment emphasizes that while a party's failure to respond can lead to a default decree, the threshold for such an order is high, especially in complex IP matters like pharmaceutical products, necessitating full evidence and trial.
M/S Green Star Pharma Llp v.Ved Prakash Trading As Green Star Pharma
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by M/S Green Star Pharma Llp against the Commercial Court's dismissal of its interim injunction application. The core dispute revolves around the use of the 'GREEN STAR' trademark in the pharmaceutical sector. While the appellant relies on passing off, the court raises significant questions regarding the timing and scope of goodwill acquisition, especially given the respondent's earlier registered device mark.
Jindal Steel And Power Limited v.Jp Structures Private Limited
In this ongoing trademark infringement dispute, Jindal Steel And Power Limited challenged the trial court's decision to delete Defendant No. 1 (Jp Structures Private Limited) from the case. The petitioner argued that Defendant No. 1 was a necessary party because they were the original user of the infringing goods and disclosed the names of subsequent suppliers. The High Court directed notice be issued, ensuring the matter would be heard on July 3rd, allowing the dispute over party status to continue.
Ms C R Auluck And Sons Private Limited v.Ms Dharamlaxmi Machines Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registered trademark 'DHARMLAXMI' belonging to the respondent, in favor of the petitioner who owns 'LUXMI'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting deceptive similarity between the two marks and products (sewing machines), noting that the respondent was using the mark in a manner different from its registration. This interim order is crucial for the petitioner as it prevents the respondent from continuing to operate under the disputed trademark while the rectification petition proceeds.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co Ltd
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed against the trademark 'FLORASIS'. The Delhi High Court granted condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to all parties, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning bearing group products, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 14, 2025. The court noted that negotiation talks between M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and the respondents were still ongoing. Consequently, the court decided to renotify the parties for further proceedings on August 7, 2025, indicating a continued focus on out-of-court resolution.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd v.Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file additional documentation and, crucially, addressed the request for an ad interim injunction. While noting concerns over mark similarity and color combination usage, the court granted conditional relief, requiring the defendant (D-1) to change its packaging colors within two weeks while allowing it to exhaust existing stock.
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of their trademark register entries (Registration Nos. 671443 and 671598). The petitioner argued that despite the marks being valid up to specific future dates, the online system incorrectly displayed messages indicating renewal failure due to delays. The court took cognizance of this discrepancy and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, directing them to provide clarifications regarding the validity and renewal status of both trademarks.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei requested that certain information highlighted in grey in the statement of claim, along with related annexes marked as confidential, be classified as confidential under Article 58 of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich granted the request, ordering that the confidential information be protected from access by the opposing party and the public, and that the defendants not disclose such information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This decision addresses cost assessment proceedings arising from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The court examined the defendant's objection that the plaintiff's claimed recoverable representation costs were unreasonable in amount. The court established that a party challenging the reasonableness of costs must provide substantiated factual submissions explaining why the costs are disproportionate in relation to the matter's significance, complexity, and prospects of success.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. , Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
1. In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean- ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. 2. For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the original denial, leaving the patents in force.
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 stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
Rieter Ag And Anr. v.Kavassery Narayanaswamy Venkatesubramanian
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction over an infringement suit involving designs, trademarks, and patents. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite the defendant being based elsewhere, the cause of action arose in Delhi because goods were delivered to an address there following an order placed from Delhi. The court rejected the defense's claim that the transaction was merely a 'trap purchase,' affirming that the physical delivery of goods and invoicing in Delhi established the court's jurisdiction.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
94 Cedar Properties And Trading Llp & Ors v.Shri Munish Thakur & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings related to a previous settlement concerning the trademark 'DROTIN' and its variants. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was using the deceptively similar mark 'DROTINXT' in medicinal preparations, constituting contempt of court. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their returnable appearance.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg RoP, il tetto massimo dei costi di difesa rimborsabili a favore della parte a cui tale diritto è stato riconosciuto da una decisione di merito, in ossequio al principio di proporzionalità, può essere raggiunto solo in situazioni limitate, ad esempio per la complessità delle questioni trattate, per il numero di brevetti esaminati, per le parti coinvolte o per l’uso di più lingue. 2. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg Ro
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Netherlands B.V., ZTE France SASU v.Respondent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Universal Corporation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Universal Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, noting the long history and exponential growth of the 'Moti Mahal' brand since 1920. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill, the defendant was immediately restrained from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL'.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by the Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., to extend the deadline for filing its reply brief in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant sought a one-week extension because the Statement of Defence was initially served in redacted form, with access to the unredacted version only granted later. The court found the extension justified and extended the deadline until 19 May 2025.
Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.