Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4101–4200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Court decision.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,674,432, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art NFC and biometric references. The petition lists eight grounds covering the full claim set.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Telcom Ventures’ ’411 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art NFC payment systems combined with biometric authentication. Two grounds are presented, differing on the interpretation of “physiological data.”
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
The Regents of the University of California & Others v.Union of India & Others
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Opposition Board regarding an interlocutory application related to their granted patent. The dispute centered on procedural infirmities in the post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence filed by the respondent. The court held that since the matter was still pending before the Hearing Officer and no final decision had been reached, the writ petition was premature.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh v.Ms. Jasmin Chandrakant Vora & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh sought permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for using its registered trademarks and devices. The court noted the parties' initial request for exemption from mediation but ultimately referred them to pre-litigation mediation. Subsequently, the defendants assured the court that they would withdraw infringing products from e-commerce sites within a week and were granted time to file an undertaking confirming their non-infringement intentions.
Ms Khatema Fibres Limited v.Dr Rakesh Chandra Rastogi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing Ms Khatema Fibres Limited to proceed with a rectification petition against the registered trademark 'KHATEMA' held by Defendant No. 1. The court formally initiated the proceedings, granting both parties specific timeframes—four weeks for the defendant's reply and six weeks for filing composite written synopses in related applications. This order sets the stage for a detailed legal battle over the validity of the trademark registration.
Castrol Limited And Anr v.Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Castrol Limited against Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service notice, citing the need for immediate action regarding search and seizure of counterfeit goods. Crucially, the Court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize infringing products, examine accounts, and gather evidence at the defendants' premises, setting the stage for robust litigation.
Abbott Product Operations Ag & Anr. v.Medinox Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued an order compelling Defendants No. 1 and 2 (pharmaceutical distributors) to immediately cease manufacturing medicines bearing the impugned trademark 'DUPHAMED' or any variation using 'DUPHA'. This interim relief was granted in the context of urgent proceedings, while also allowing time for existing stock disposal. The court further streamlined procedural requirements by granting exemptions related to document filing and pre-institution mediation.
Ms Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v.Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce additional documents related to trademark applications and assignments in a commercial suit. The court, emphasizing that procedure is the handmaid of justice, permitted the plaintiff to place statutory Trademark Registry documents on record, despite their belated submission. However, the court rejected a third-party legal notice as irrelevant to the pleadings. This order allows the litigation to proceed with expanded evidence while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Yoghurt Tv & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for the infringement of its copyrighted content by various 'Rogue Apps' like Yoghurt TV. The court initially granted procedural exemptions sought by the plaintiff regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon regulatory bodies (DoT/MEITY). Crucially, the court also passed a significant temporary injunction order, granting a 'Dynamic+' relief to protect its works against ongoing infringement across various platforms.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v.Azad Optical Co. India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Trading As Kanika Impetus v.Kamal Raheja Trading As Amaira Herbals
The Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on a Commercial Court's order that had made an ad-interim injunction absolute. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off concerning the identical trademark 'MARKS GO' used for skin products by both parties. While noting procedural deficiencies in the lower court's decision regarding passing off principles, the High Court ultimately decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order pending a full appeal hearing.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application seeking revocation of a dispensation granted to the plaintiff (Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited) allowing them to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the infringement (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Consequently, the court allowed the application seeking revocation of dispensation.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court involved an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revive its trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anita Anu. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could override a previous court order that required adherence to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant argued that the nine-month delay between the alleged knowledge (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024) was unexplained, suggesting an artificial creation of urgency.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Ona Patents SL, Ekahau Oy
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 802.11ax Wi‑Fi patent, arguing the Board ignored settled expectations, misapplied the diverse‑subject‑matter test, and ignored Samsung’s contradictory indefiniteness positions.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,650,968, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before instituting trial and to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges Wilus’s request for Director Review of the IPR institution, arguing examiner error and consistent claim constructions. The petitioner seeks denial of the review so the IPR can proceed.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
Trodat Gmbh & Anr. v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the infringement of registered stamp designs. The defendant, Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, sought clarification regarding an interim injunction that had previously restrained it from manufacturing products deemed imitations of the plaintiffs' (Trodat Gmbh & Anr.) designs. The defendant proposed a new, alternative design and argued that it was sufficiently distinct to avoid infringement. The court examined the visual differences between the two designs and granted prima facie permission for the defendant to proceed with the manufacture and marketing of this modified product.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revoke a dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using the mark 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the issue (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Citing precedents, the judge held that without a clear explanation for the delay, the urgency was artificially created, leading to the revocation of the dispensation.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Neofusion Commerce Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Rishabh Jain & Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Hermes International against Neofusion Commerce, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 6, 2025. While the plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of their registered trademarks in relation to luxury bags and accessories, the court referred the parties to pre-litigation mediation. The defendants were granted a temporary reprieve, agreeing not to deal with existing disputed inventory while proposing alternative product variations.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
Vidya Bhushan Jain v.Mohammed Younus Sheikh And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Trademark No. 605340 after finding that the core issue had been resolved by the parties. The court noted that the trademark renewal process was completed, with the mark being renewed for another ten years. Consequently, the High Court set aside an earlier order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and allowed the petitioner's trademark to continue subsisting in the Register.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
Meril GmbH v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R.262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case between Meril GmbH and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris order granting access, holding that access should not be granted to unrepresented members of the public, and that the Statement of response lodged by an unauthorized representative constituted a decision by default. The Court also rejected Meril GmbH's request for costs.
Meril Italy v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by a member of the public for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in a counterclaim for revocation case. The Court of Appeal set aside the Central Division Paris's order granting access, holding that access to written pleadings and evidence should not be granted to members of the public who are not properly represented. The Court also held that compensation for costs should not be awarded in relation to such applications.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apple’s wireless device feedback patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G semi‑persistent scheduling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Fakoorian‑1, Fakoorian‑2, and Takahashi. The petition presents three §103 grounds and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G scheduling patent, asserting obviousness over 3GPP standards.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition requests institution on a §103 ground and argues the Board should not exercise discretion to deny it.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,28144, asserting obviousness over Wright and, in combination, Tzannes and Smith. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent (11,108,639) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims related to wireless scheduling mechanisms are unpatentable over combinations of Fakoorian-1 and Takahashi. This sets up a major IP battle regarding advanced cellular technology standards.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,944,527, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to massive MIMO and beamforming.
M/S Mittal Electronics v.Mr. Rohit Rana
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal v.Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) v.***
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 concerning a request by claimants OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV for payment of litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62 under Rule 151 RoP in proceedings involving EP 2 233 036. The dispute centered on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the defendant's appeal filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in UPC_CFI_376/2023. The claimants argued that under Article 74(1) UPCA, appeal has no suspensive effect and that no legal basis exists for delaying the costs decision.
Evac Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney group of companies and BAMTech LLC (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) filed an application requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Mannheim. The underlying infringement action was brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. based on European Patent EP2465265 concerning methods and apparatus for improved intra chroma encoding and decoding. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the application under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, weighing the respective interests of the parties and consulting the panel of the Local Division Mannheim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.