Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5501–5600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of a cost determination application filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) following a patent infringement and revocation dispute with Avago Technologies. The Local Chamber Hamburg held that the court of first instance retains jurisdiction over the withdrawal of a cost determination application still pending before it, even when the main proceedings (infringement claim and counterclaims) have been appealed. The reporting judge further held that, as a substantive decision under Rule 156.2 RoP rather than a case management measure under Rules 331 ff RoP, the decision to permit the withdrawal falls within the reporting judge's sole and exclusive competence.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims 1-19 against Brook & Whittle Ltd.'s patent. The Board adopted a specific, technical construction for 'recyclable' based on prosecution history and found sufficient evidence across grounds including anticipation (102), obviousness (103), and indefiniteness (112).
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Seikagaku Corporation's patent (11236318) based on grounds of lack of written description and obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence at this preliminary stage, allowing the challenge to proceed into full litigation.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to overcome anticipation and obviousness grounds related to lithium-ion battery separator materials.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the Court of Appeal's handling of Avago's request to withdraw its infringement action and seek reimbursement of court fees following an adverse first-instance ruling. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed Avago's infringement claim, partially revoked the patent EP 1 612 910, and ordered Avago to bear 85% of costs. Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw the infringement action, with Tesla consenting. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of withdrawal requests in appellate proceedings and the consequences for related auxiliary requests.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Respondent
1. The coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings be- fore UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way, taking into account the position of all
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the admission of withdrawal of an infringement action in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Avago had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910, and Tesla had filed counterclaims for revocation. Following a mixed first-instance ruling by the Local Division Hamburg, Avago appealed and subsequently requested withdrawal of the infringement action, to which Tesla consented. The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal, declared the infringement proceedings terminated, and addressed the consequences for the revocation counterclaims and the reimbursement of court fees.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna addressed an alleged infringement of European Patent 2 643 717 brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, with Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. intervening. The court established guiding principles on four key issues: the mandatory formal counterclaim for revocation when invalidity is pleaded, the distinction between recall and final removal of infringing products, the discretionary nature of publication orders, and the cost treatment of interveners as analogous to parties.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology seeks to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR filed by battery maker Zhuhai CosMX, arguing the Board relied on impermissible expert testimony and ignored teaching‑away prior art.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Court decision.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑10 of Seikagaku’s 11,959,109 patent covering recombinant endotoxin assay methods. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation by a 2019 publication.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to invalidate Valtrus’s ’738 patent covering SIP fault‑tolerance methods, asserting obviousness over the Forissier patent. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is improper.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to invalidate Seikagaku Corporation's patent claims related to endotoxin detection. The Board found grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 112, specifically citing anticipation by a prior publication.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s lithium-ion battery patent (11,923,498). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Krbl Limited v.Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The case concerned issues of direct and indirect patent infringement, novelty, inventive step, and remedies including destruction, recall, and removal from distribution channels, as well as publication of the decision.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on November 26, 2024 and issued its decision on January 14, 2025. The judgment establishes key principles regarding direct and indirect patent infringement, destruction of infringing goods, recall and removal from distribution channels, and permission to publish the decision.
Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U. v.Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Respondent
Bentley Motors Limited, as claimant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 against Network Systems Technologies LLC, applied to withdraw the action. The respondent was given an opportunity to comment and did not object within the time limit set by the Court. The Court permitted the withdrawal under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision entered on the register, with no cost decision issued as neither party sought one.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
UPC Decision UPC-001039 v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an application for provisional measures against three Netgear entities concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321 before the Local Division Munich. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for interim measures. The single judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the dispute value at EUR 3 million, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This Revised Order concerns procedural matters in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The dispute centers on Claimant 2 (Harvard College)'s filing of 55 auxiliary requests in its application to amend the patent at issue, with parallel opposition proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (EPO). The Defendants sought to limit the number of auxiliary requests and adjust procedural deadlines, while the judge-rapporteur had previously ordered a stay of proceedings and a reduction of auxiliary requests to a one-digit number. The Revised Order addresses Claimant 2's subsequent application regarding the implementation of these prior orders.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
UPC Decision UPC-001036 v.Respondent
The applicant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, sought interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 before the Local Division Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on December 9, 2024, which had not yet been served on the respondent, the applicant withdrew its application for interim measures on January 3, 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, holding that the prior ex parte order did not constitute a final decision ending the instance because the review period under Rule 212.3 RoP had not yet begun.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This cost determination proceedings order concerned the reimbursement of costs from prior interim injunction proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The parties had agreed on the principal amounts of recoverable costs, but Edwards sought additional interest at five percentage points above the base rate under § 247 BGB from the date of filing. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that reimbursable procedural costs and expenses do not bear interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Netgear group of companies to withdraw their action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd regarding European Patent Nos. 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The defendant had already consented to the withdrawal in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at €1 million, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid, with each party bearing their own costs.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321, accompanied by a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for leave to withdraw their respective claims. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 40% refund of the court fees paid by each party, with each side bearing its own costs.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of PayGeo’s ’296 mobile‑payment patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art and requests the Board to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
UPC Decision UPC-001054 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision delivered on 16 September 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The applicant argued that its default in failing to file a defence to revocation was due to its long-standing European Patent Attorney being unavailable because of illness. The respondent, BMW, objected that the applicant had not sufficiently explained its default or taken reasonable efforts to meet the deadline. The Court interpreted Rule 356(2) RoP to require the applicant to demonstrate that the default was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure beyond their control.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV , ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV , JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl , E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BI v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the Local Division Paris concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action. ArcelorMittal filed an infringement claim on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and their European distributors/dealers based on European Patent EP 3290200 relating to coated steel strips. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection regarding the language of the proceedings, and the Court addressed translation arrangements, granting the parties 10 days to agree on which annexes should be provided in English.
UPC Decision UPC-001047 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.General Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.
Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v.Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.
Meril Italy srl, Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a cost application filed by the Meril entities against SWAT Medical AB, seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred during proceedings related to SWAT Medical's application for access to written pleadings and evidence (App_33484/2024), which had been rejected. The respondents argued the cost application was inadmissible because it was incorrectly filed under Rule 9 RoP rather than Rule 158 RoP. The applicants filed a further application (App_64037/2024) to rebut the inadmissibility argument. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur addressed the admissibility of the applicants' written comments and the procedural framework governing cost decisions following rejected access-to-register requests.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) v.Respondent
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.
Global Health Limited And Anr v.John Doe And Ors
Global Health Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against defendants in a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of personality rights. The plaintiffs sought relief due to the circulation of fabricated 'deep fake' videos featuring Dr. Naresh Trehan, which used the protected brand name 'MEDANTA.' The court directed the defendants to immediately remove or disable the infringing content within strict timeframes, recognizing the irreparable harm caused by the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and goodwill.
Abacus Montessori School v.Abacus International Montessori School; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Abacus Montessori School, a long-standing educational institution, by ordering the expungement of a conflicting trademark registration held by Abacus International Montessori School. The court found that despite geographical proximity and differences in scope (e.g., 'International'), the identical use of the mark 'ABACUS' for similar educational services created a likelihood of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of prior user rights and established goodwill over subsequent registrations.
Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Yash Arora As Trading As Siddhi Vinayak Traders And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, 'GREEN DIAMOND.' The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and identical to the petitioner's established trademark 'DIAMOND,' which had significant goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market since 1975. Crucially, the judgment highlighted the dishonest adoption by the respondent, who was an ex-distributor of the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle against riding on a competitor's reputation.
RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.
Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
Scientific Drilling International has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Gunnar LLLP’s ‘780 patent on magnetic ranging while drilling. The petition alleges lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over several prior‑art patents.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.