IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 105 of 189 · 5,670 total
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed an appeal seeking to quash a previous opposition order related to trademark application no. 6109894 in Class 30. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, allowing both the appellant (Parle) and respondent no. 2 sufficient time—six weeks for synopsis filing and subsequent reply periods—to prepare their arguments before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. et al.
This procedural order concerns two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen entities of the Moderna group before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court, concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's international jurisdiction, local competence, and the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed most of the preliminary objections, finding the applications inadmissible only with respect to Moderna Belgium, Moderna Germany, and (in part) Moderna Poland, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, Warmcook
Hurom Co., Ltd, a Korean kitchen appliance manufacturer, brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against NUC Electronics Co., NUC Electronics Europe, and Warmcook concerning European Patent EP 3 155 936 relating to juicers. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, alleging added matter (Article 123(2) EPC) and lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The Court revoked the Dutch, French, German, and Italian parts of the patent as amended, dismissed all infringement claims, and ordered Hurom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited & Other Moderna Entities
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court addresses preliminary objections filed by fifteen Moderna group entities (the defendants) in two infringement actions brought by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The defendants challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local competence of the Hague division, long-arm jurisdiction for acts outside UPCA territory, and (in case 191/25) the validity of the opt-out withdrawal. The judge-rapporteur dismissed the preliminary objections on all substantive grounds, declared certain applications inadmissible for specific defendants, and deferred the long-arm jurisdiction question to the main proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of a director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00974 and related cases, leaving Telcom Ventures’ patents untouched.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the earlier decisions, leaving the challenged patents intact.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition relies on two prior‑art references, Jain and Dua, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim constructions or board decisions are present yet.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent (U.S. 9,462,411) on obviousness grounds, relying on the Jain and Dua publications. The petition argues that all claim elements were known in the art before the patent’s filing date.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition asserts obviousness over the Jain and Dua publications and cites lack of commercial success. A stipulation limits further district‑court litigation if the review is instituted.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures’ ’756 patent covering smartphone‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on the Jain and Dua prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 18 claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich). The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings to concentrate on finalising ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur agreed to stay the proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP, cancelling the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
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.