IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 100 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement related to proprietary engineering drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The core issue was whether these technical drawings fell under the definition of 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby invalidating the claim for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that determining this mixed question of law and fact could not be done at a preliminary stage (Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to conduct a full trial to comprehensively assess all IP claims.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH
This Procedural Order addressed the issue of service of the statement of claim on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) in a patent infringement action concerning European patent No. 4 372 829. A registered letter sent via Deutsche Post was notified for collection on 10 March 2025 but was not collected by the defendant and was returned to the Court marked 'nicht abgeholt' (unclaimed). The Court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed the statement of claim to have been served on 14 March 2025, ordering Defendant 4 to file its statement of defence by 16 June 2025.
Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, for separation of proceedings under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action against five defendants, including Motorola entities, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. The plaintiff sought to separate the case against the fifth defendant (Flextronics) into its own proceeding and to avoid paying an additional court fee for the separated case. The fifth defendant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was caused by the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED,, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
The Court of Appeal granted STADAPHARM GmbH's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute was a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 501 384, brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG before the Milan Central Division. Following the withdrawal of the main proceedings by Accord, Novartis withdrew its objections, and the Court of Appeal reversed the Milan Local Division's earlier order dismissing Stadapharm's access request.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.
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.