Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5001–5100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
Navya Network Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Navya Network Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE'. The Controller raised objections regarding lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(k). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on cited prior art.
Magneti Marelli S.P.A. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Magneti Marelli appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application (No. 420/CHE/2009) on grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art citations. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to discuss their submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior arts. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unsupported by reasons and set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a Vehicle Monitoring System. The appellant argued that certain prior art documents did not qualify as prior art or failed to disclose the claimed invention's features, particularly data transmission capabilities when the vehicle is switched off. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited's application for the word mark 'KPN'. The court found that the initial decision failed to consider the appellant's defense of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the TM Act. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration on this crucial legal point.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. v.Kamal Bansal
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. against Kamal Bansal, directing the removal of the registered trademark 'VKG'. The court found that 'VKG' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark 'VKC', which had been used since 1985 in respect of footwear. Crucially, the court noted that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual use of the impugned mark, leading it to conclude that the registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Raghuvar (India) Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns two consolidated proceedings involving Heraeus Electronics and Heraeus Precious Metals as plaintiffs against Vibrantz GmbH regarding alleged infringement of European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation) in Germany, Italy, and France. The order addresses the correction of a prior order from December 2, 2024 regarding the replacement of the counter-defendant in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and considers an application under Rule 362 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the German part of the patent. Vibrantz had raised objections regarding the timeliness and standing of the replacement request.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/02/2025 Concernant une demande en garantie des frais (Règle 158 Rdp) REQUÉRANT - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 - Memmingen
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Union If India And Ors
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed against an order rejecting its patent application for "AIR CONDITIONING APPARATUS" due to a lack of inventive step. The court found that the rejection order was unreasoned, cryptic, and failed to apply independent mind to the prior art documents cited. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh hearing.
Vennootschap v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application, which was based on a lack of inventive steps. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanically passed and violated natural justice because new prior art (D-2) was introduced at the hearing stage without being mentioned in the initial examination report. The Court agreed, finding no reasons in the impugned order.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
This matter before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division involves Andreas Gutzeit challenging a patent-related issue against The Controller General of Patents. The appellant raised a pure question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given the complexity and legal nature of the dispute, the court granted a final adjournment to allow both parties time to file their Written Notes of Submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the review of the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees, but the presiding judge as rapporteur had granted only 40%, reasoning that the withdrawals occurred after the completion of the written procedure. Panasonic argued that the parties had not been informed of the completion of the written procedure before withdrawing. The panel confirmed the rapporteur's orders, maintaining the 40% reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned a fee refund dispute following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and counterclaims after an out-of-court settlement. The parties requested a 60% refund of court fees, but the presiding judge initially granted only 40% under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff sought review to obtain the higher 60% refund, and the defendants joined this request. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the 40% refund, holding that the complex and intensively pursued nature of the dispute constituted an exceptional case under Rule 370.9(e).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged a communication from respondent authorities that cancelled a scheduled hearing for its patent application, citing redundancy in cited prior art. The petitioner argued this cancellation was unjustifiable without following procedural mandates. The court found serious infractions of procedure and directed the matter to be reassigned and heard afresh.
M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills, directing The Registrar of Trademarks to permit the renewal of the trademark 'THENALEE.' Despite the mark having lapsed, the court relied on previous judgments stating that if a trademark is not removed from the register, the owner is entitled to seek renewal. However, the petitioner was put on strict terms, including paying costs and filing the application within 30 days, to prevent future negligence.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Shree Bhawani Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Shree Bhawani Agro Industries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of the trademark 'SHAKTIMAN' by the defendant on agricultural products like Rotavator Blades. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the urgency in protecting established brand rights.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This decision concerns the assessment of costs for first instance and appeal proceedings in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Munich. The applicants (Bruker Spatial Biology, Luxendo GmbH, and Bruker Nederland B.V.) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 against the respondents (10x Genomics, Inc. and NanoString Technologies Inc.) following the Court of Appeal's rejection of the respondents' application for interim measures. The court addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of cost assessment applications after summary proceedings, the nature of cost orders in interim measure proceedings, and the binding effect of the one-month deadline under Rule 151.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, the proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged patent infringement. The Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) refused the provisional measures by order of 5 September 2024. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this refusal, finding that Biolitec had not demonstrated that provisional measures were necessary because proceedings on the merits could be awaited, and that the requested measures would change a market status quo established years before the patent's grant.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing held on February 21, 2025, including the valuation of the infringement claim and counterclaim, procedural questions regarding late submissions, and scheduling for further proceedings.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Court decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors resolved their co‑development dispute through a settlement agreement that releases all claims and dismisses the related district‑court case. The settlement effectively ends the IPR2025‑00636 proceeding.
Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.
Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully moved forward in its IPR against ControlTec, LLC's patent (7421847), leading to institution on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding the prior art reference 'Carter' analogous to condensation control in refrigerated cases.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner on claim 1 based on prior art combination arguments. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction regarding target detection, maintaining ordinary and customary meaning. This sets up an active trial phase to determine patent validity in UAV/Flight Control technology.
Smart Call Centre Solution Private Limited v.Harinder Singh And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages against the defendant for alleged disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. The court granted leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and dispensed with the pre-mediation process due to grave urgency. Subsequently, an interim order was passed restraining the defendant from disclosing or utilizing confidential client data and trade secrets.
Creativeland Advertising Private Limited v.Winzo Games Private Limited
In a dispute concerning the use and registration of the tagline "Jeeto Har Dinzo," Creativeland Advertising sought interim protection against Winzo Games, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trademark infringement. Despite the petitioner's request for immediate injunctions, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court appointed Justice Manmohan Singh as the arbitrator and directed him to expedite the proceedings within five days due to the imminent advertising campaign timeline.
Adyar Gate Hotels Limited v.ITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Mr.Amit Agarwal / M/s.Seetu Orbit Cable India Pvt. Limited v.Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta / M/s.ADL Orbit Cable (India)
The Madras High Court addressed applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand ORBIT/ADL ORBIT. While upholding the interim injunction against the use of the registered trademarks, the court recognized the potential hardship caused by immediate cessation of the trading name. Consequently, it granted a 60-day grace period for the defendant to transition its branding, balancing public interest in preventing consumer confusion with commercial viability.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH v.SES-imagotag SA
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns court fees for the appeal instance, an application for a default decision, and an application for leave to appeal against a cost decision. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 883 277, where VusionGroup's application for interim measures against the Hanshow companies was rejected by the Local Division Munich, with VusionGroup ordered to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues regarding the cost determination application and the admissibility of the appeal.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the breadth of the claimed genus and the impossibility of testing all variants.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies seeks to reinstate an inter partes review of its automotive sensor patent, arguing that the Board’s earlier institution was proper and that its narrow claim construction is supported by the specification.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies files a Director Review petition to vacate the institution of an IPR against Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and indefiniteness arguments violate the Director’s Tesla policy.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC requests Director Review to vacate the PTAB's institution of an IPR filed by Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner gave conflicting claim constructions in the Board and district court. The request cites recent Director decisions requiring explanation of such inconsistencies.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,060,590 covering thousands of engineered PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '590 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB found the claims were overly broad regarding polypeptide scope, requiring undue experimentation for a skilled artisan.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a patent dispute involving Revvo and Cerebrum, remanding the case for further proceedings after clarifying that petitioners must explain inconsistent claim construction positions across forums.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several prior art references.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR in a dispute involving Tire Stickers LLC and Revvo Technologies, citing Petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal venues.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.The Controller Of Patents
The Regents of the University of California appealed the refusal of their patent application concerning a recombinant Salmonella microorganism based live vaccine. The Controller argued that the broad scope of the claims led to two major issues: first, they potentially covered naturally occurring loss-of-function variants, making them non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act; and second, the complete specification lacked sufficient disclosure and clarity for the wide range of organisms claimed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure and non-patentability.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.M.M. Oil Traders
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers (Bhagat) v.Respondent
Bhagat Textile Engineers applied for access to documents and written submissions in a revocation counterclaim filed by Himson Engineering Private Limited against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP214548. Bhagat sought the documents to substantiate a renewed request for suspension of its appeal in a parallel infringement action. The Milan Local Division denied the application, finding that the information was obtainable through other channels and that granting access would compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
Cretes NV v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the streamlining of parallel infringement and revocation proceedings between CRETES NV (plaintiff/counterclaim defendant) and HYLER BV (defendant/counterclaim plaintiff) relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. The Court addresses a general procedural request filed by CRETES under Rule 9 RoP regarding the alignment of deadlines between the infringement action (UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_556/2024). Both parties had previously agreed that the date of notification of the Statement of Defence (September 16, 2024) would serve as the determining date for deadlines in both proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung Electronics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its life‑signs detector patent. The petition alleges examiner error, improper reliance on settled expectations, and due‑process violations. A stay of the parallel district‑court case is also argued.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr
The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. initiated legal proceedings against Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl and others concerning a Suit Patent related to an 8/16 modulation method used in data recording on discs. The court addressed complex issues, including the patent's validity under various sections of the Patents Act (such as novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, and non-patentability). Ultimately, after analyzing infringement claims and the defendants' conduct, the judgment focused on determining appropriate FRAND royalty rates for the patented technology.
Evonik Operations Gmbh And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
This appeal was filed by Evonik Operations Gmbh challenging an order dated May 2, 2023, which rejected Patent Application No. 201837000665. The court directed the appellants to file an Informal Paper Book and listed the matter for April 2025.
Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited v.Salahudeen Abdhullatheef
The Madras High Court addressed two petitions concerning trademark rectification in Class 9, involving Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited and Salahudeen Abdhullatheef. The court allowed the petition filed by Solidaire to expunge a prior mark (TM No.3882705), finding that its use predated the challenged registration. Conversely, the court dismissed Abdhullatheef's petition seeking rectification of his own mark, concluding that Solidaire's mark was deceptively similar and possessed superior priority in both use and registration.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.