IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 103 of 189 · 5,670 total
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This appeal concerned an application by Centripetal Limited for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in relation to alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 821 580, which covers methods and systems for efficient network protection. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court revoked the impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division, finding that while Centripetal had demonstrated a plausible case of infringement and a risk of evidence destruction justifying an ex parte order, several of the requested measures went beyond what was necessary. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for a new decision consistent with the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 relating to apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) held that the patent was invalid on grounds of added matter, as it extended beyond the content of the parent application. The Court revoked the German part of the patent and ordered the Defendant to bear the costs.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black, the inventor of a prior dental isolation mouthpiece, filed a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition against Solmetex’s 11,589,969 patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering 26 claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 18 claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all fifteen claims of SoundClear’s ’374 patent, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering speech detection, quality evaluation, and LED feedback in two‑way radios.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mouthpiece patent, arguing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health has filed an IPR petition challenging UBC’s 2021 ultrasound imaging patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references describing view‑specific neural‑network quality assessment.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,744,686 covering an intraoral mouthpiece. The petition asserts that claims 12‑21 are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that the patent owner broadened claim scope. The case is pending institution.
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of obvious inaccuracies in a decision pronounced on May 8, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff's correction request, finding the identified points to be obvious errors, and the defendant did not oppose the corrections. The corrections addressed various orders regarding information disclosure, accounting, destruction of infringing products, recall obligations, and damages, as well as a paragraph concerning auxiliary requests for maintenance of the patent.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.
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.