IP Cases — 2025
4,177 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 140 · 4,177 total
Google LLC v.Gamba Group Holdings LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition against Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s 9,772,193 patent covering Bluetooth and GPS‑based parking‑location methods. The petition asserts anticipation by Baese and Phillips and obviousness with Phillips and Soliman, seeking cancellation of claims 12, 13, and 15‑18. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co v.EPO
1 Paris Central Division Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts UPC_CFI_1771/2025 betreffend das EP 3 327 608 erlassen am 30. Dezember 2025 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Das Einheitliche Patentgericht wendet gemäß Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 20 des Übereinkommens üb
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Qomplx’s multi-factor authentication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Kirti patent and the Coffin textbook. The petition seeks institution of IPR on claims 1‑21, 23‑28, and 30.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Tempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,218,934 covering contextual, risk‑based multi‑factor authentication. The petition asserts that claims 1‑30 are obvious over prior art including the Kirti patent, the Coffin textbook, and Vemulapalli’s virtual‑machine teachings. No objective evidence of non‑obviousness is presented.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc., v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 50 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’053 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of CDN‑related prior art. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra v.Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra filed an Interim Application alleging that unknown persons used her photographs to generate and circulate obscene, sexually explicit deepfake content created via artificial intelligence. She sought immediate orders to remove all infringing content from online platforms due to the severe damage to her reputation and dignity. The Court passed an interim order directing all defendants to delete the specified URLs and instructing government bodies (MeitY and DoT) to pull down the unlawful content.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought leave to appeal a cost decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) dated 6 November 2025, which ordered it to pay EUR 350,000 in costs to Microsoft Corporation following the early termination of an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 671 173. Suinno requested a reduction of the awarded costs to EUR 137,815.80. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the awarded amount was proportionate within the applicable ceiling of EUR 600,000 and that the judge-rapporteur had conducted a thorough and detailed assessment of the recoverable costs.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of an application for rehearing filed by Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited against Syngenta Limited concerning patent EP 2 152 073. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal following settlement discussions, and the court ordered a 60% reimbursement of the 2,500 € court fee (1,500 €) to Sumi while dismissing the remainder of their requests, including the request for a full waiver of fees.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,701,173, which covers CDN cache‑policy methods. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all fourteen claims.
Ravi Chauhan v.Pankaj Chauhan
The plaintiff, a registered patent and trademark agent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- against the defendant. The dispute arose because the defendant failed to pay the agreed fees for filing a counter-statement in opposition to the trademark 'FULEZ'. Since the defendant remained absent despite service and was proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.
Surface Logix Llc & Ors. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical Lucius Pharmaceutical(Lao) Co. Ltd & Ors.
Surface Logix LLC and its associates filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Lucius Pharmaceutical for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 291914, titled 'PHARMACOKINETICALLY IMPROVED COMPOUNDS'. The court addressed various procedural applications, including granting exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent and directed Defendant No. 2 (an online platform) to delist all advertisements related to the generic product 'BELUMOSUDIL' or brand name 'LuciBelu'.
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v.Mr Shahjahan Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of The Ritz Hotel Limited and its subsidiaries against Mr. Shahjahan Khan and others. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, recognizing the established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'Ritz' mark. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'RITZ RIVERIA' across various media, pending further hearings.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
Bunch Microtechnologies Pvt Ltd v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
In an amicable resolution, the Delhi High Court disposed of the copyright infringement suit filed by Bunch Microtechnologies against Telegram Fz Llc. The parties successfully negotiated and formalized a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing how complaints regarding content infringement must be handled. This SOP mandates specific proof requirements from complainants, such as demonstrating ownership of copyright or trademark, before Telegram takes action. The court upheld this agreement, binding the defendant to the terms while granting the plaintiff a partial refund of court fees.
Mandeep Singh v.Shabir Momin & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to the rectification and cancellation of trademarks associated with 'Instant Bollywood.' While the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material documents indicating prior knowledge of the trademark registrations, it chose not to dismiss the interim injunction application. Instead, the court entertained the injunction but imposed a significant cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner for the non-disclosure.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 905 730. The Defendants (Samsung entities) filed requests to produce their own licence agreement with a third party and to file further written submissions regarding new developments in licence negotiations and their own third-party licence agreements. The court dismissed these requests as belated, holding that the front-loaded procedure required the Defendants to make such submissions and production requests at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 against multiple defendants. On 16 December 2025, the claimant applied to withdraw the action against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs and seeking reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 11,400) to the claimant.
Valéo Systèmes d’Essuyages v.Robert Bosch Doo Bograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_809/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2025 DEMANDEURS ROBERT BOSCH GmbH (Partie à la procédure au principal - Défendeur) 1 Robert-Bosch Platz 70839 GERLINGEN – DEUTSCHL
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the withdrawal of an appeal and reimbursement of court fees. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw the appeal before the Statement of Response was lodged, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to the appellant, Lindal Dispenser GmbH.
NEC Corporation v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd, et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust regarding European Patent EP 2 903 267 against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings, INFINIX Mobility, TECNO Mobile, and several European distributors. On December 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a request to withdraw the action against all defendants, which was consented to by defendants 1-4 and 6-8, while defendant 5 (ASD SAS) did not appear. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at EUR 1,500,000, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (EUR 11,400) to the plaintiff.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over bunion‑correction patents. The settlement resolves claims of infringement, trademark, and copyright disputes.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace Medical Concepts' 12,268,428 bunion‑correction patent, alleging that all 30 claims are anticipated or obvious over well‑known surgical textbooks and prior‑art patents. The petition lists ten grounds covering §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Pfizer Inc. v.Pogona, LLC
Pfizer has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757 covering pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Alexander and Gu, plus extensive epidemiology literature.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr v.M/S Steel India & Ors
The Plaintiffs, holding patents related to a corrugated construction element and its manufacturing method, filed a suit against the Defendants for infringement. The court found merit in the Plaintiffs' submission and passed orders restraining the Defendants from dealing with infringing materials.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.