IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 104 of 140 · 4,175 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
Bts Research International Pty Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai
The petitioner appealed against the rejection of its patent application, which claimed a method for generating tri-hybrid cells. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing that the hybrid cell fell within the definition of naturally occurring organisms or biological processes. The High Court found this conclusion unsubstantiated, noting the artificial and human intervention required to create the synthetic tri-hybrid cells.
M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited v.M/S. Tega Industries Limited
This revision petition challenged an order rejecting a petition filed by M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited (the defendant in the original suit) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerned a patent infringement suit (C.S. No.01 of 2019) where the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court upheld the original order, finding that the suit was properly filed based on prior judicial directions and the defendant's business location.
Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The court quashed the order that deemed his word mark application 'LABAPEN' abandoned due to failure to respond to an opposition notice. Citing previous precedent, the court held that service via email alone is insufficient when the applicant cannot prove receipt, thereby protecting the substantive rights of trademark applicants. Consequently, both the application and the opposition were restored for fresh consideration.
R.Dilip Kumar v.The Registrar of Trademarks, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by R.Dilip Kumar against the Registrar of Trademarks, quashing an order that deemed his trademark application 'PIRALEX' abandoned. The court emphasized that the statutory right of the applicant is at stake and ruled that service of opposition via email alone, without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating the response period. Consequently, both the trademark application and the opposition were restored to the file, allowing the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond on merits.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
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.