Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 73 of 424

patent mixed · Sep 25, 2025

Pooja Electric Co. v.Anand Tomar Trading As Pooja Rading Company

In this intellectual property dispute, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Pooja Electric Co., to introduce evidence of subsequently registered trademarks into the ongoing litigation. Although the plaintiff sought an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court determined that since the original plaint already disclosed the pendency of these trademark applications, a formal amendment was unnecessary. The court permitted the plaintiff to rely on the registration certificates while leading evidence, allowing the suit to proceed toward the recording of evidence.

patent dismissed · Sep 25, 2025

M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited v.M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai

Karnataka High Court · 37770683

The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.

patent settled · Sep 25, 2025

Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani

Delhi High Court - Orders · 114258182

Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.

patent settled · Sep 25, 2025

Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited

Madras High Court · 97163809

The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.

patent · Sep 24, 2025

Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000336

This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 24, 2025

Archian Foods Private Limited v.M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 141001333

Archian Foods Private Limited filed suit against M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr. alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyright, and trade dress related to 'LAHORI ZEERA' non-alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated the established goodwill and reputation of its brand. Although the defendants were proceeded ex-parte, the court found their actions not innocent and awarded nominal damages of Rs. 50,000/- to deter further illegal activities.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 24, 2025

Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu

Calcutta High Court · 17233493

Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Anita Anu regarding the use of 'Poly Punkaj' for plastic goods. The core dispute revolved around whether the court should dispense with mandatory pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Although the plaintiff claimed urgency due to the defendant's alleged bad faith registration, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The judgment held that the plaintiff's prolonged delay in approaching the court demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency, leading to the revocation of leave and dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 24, 2025

Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another

Calcutta High Court · 77504901

The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.

patent · Sep 23, 2025

3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000341

1 di 7 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 342/2025 Ordinanza depositata il 23.9.2025 RICORRENTE 3V Sigma s.p.a. RESISTENTI ACEF s.r.l. AGA s.r.l. (già ACEF s.p.a.) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDIMENTO Italiano

patent · Sep 23, 2025

APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000342

Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.

patent · Sep 23, 2025

APPLE Inc. (intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000340

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01545

BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,626,066 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits have been decided.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01545

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01545

The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2023‑01075, finding that none of the 24 challenged claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent (U.S. 11,594,578) were unpatentable. The Board rejected BOE’s obviousness arguments based on Matthies, Yamada, and Hong, concluding no teaching of a "pixel defining layer" existed. All claims remain in force.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01545

The PTAB held that Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent claims 1,4‑10,13 and 15 are obvious over prior art, while claim 2 remains patentable.

patent · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01544

BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential. The parties seek to have Exhibit 1029 treated as business confidential information and separated from the patent file.

patent · Sep 23, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01545

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.

patent · Sep 23, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics

· IPR2025-01569

Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Dynamic Mesh Networks’ ’385 patent covering wireless mesh networking. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art from Castagnoli, Bohm, and Liu.

patent interim order · Sep 23, 2025

Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 198010833

The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.

patent dismissed · Sep 23, 2025

Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 60638682

The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.

patent mixed · Sep 23, 2025

Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Fly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 99315829

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 23, 2025

J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 139791206

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited against Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing the alleged infringement of the 'ZECUF' trademark. The court recognized the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's pharmaceutical brand, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with verifying stock and seizing infringing products, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to protecting registered trademarks in the fast-moving pharma sector.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 23, 2025

Purvish Indrakant Shah & Ors. v.Shyamal Jagdishchandra Sheth

Gujarat High Court · 112671122

The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal filed by the original defendants against a trial court's temporary injunction favoring the plaintiff. The core dispute revolved around the ownership rights of the logo 'Taste of Vadodara,' which was governed by two Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs). The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, leading it to set aside the injunction and reject the application.

patent · Sep 22, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000343

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application for an inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the latter's trade fair stand in Hannover. The application was made in preparation for a main infringement action. The patent had been granted on April 26, 2017, without any opposition being filed, and was in force in multiple European countries. The respondent, the parent company of the GPAINNOVA Group, had also filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in a related main proceeding (UPC_CFI_511/2025).

patent · Sep 22, 2025

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01511

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of the Regents of the University of California’s 2010 patent on parallel distributed programming, asserting anticipation by the 1998 Fukuda publication.

patent mixed · Sep 22, 2025

Saptarishi Herbals Llp v.Asif Enterprises & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 70690623

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saptarishi Herbals Llp against Asif Enterprises & Anr. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting the plaintiff exemptions regarding e-filing advertisements and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff was granted leave to administer interrogatories upon the defendants, setting a clear path for the commencement of substantive litigation.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 19, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01562

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison references.

patent instituted · Sep 19, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01562

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.

patent instituted · Sep 19, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01562

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all challenged claims.

patent instituted · Sep 19, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01562

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

1 •••72 73 74•••424

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →