IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 105 of 140 · 4,175 total
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone successfully instituted an IPR against Airspace Systems regarding claim 21 of patent 10713959. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art reference Beard. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to trial, focusing on obviousness in low-altitude aircraft identification systems.
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France s.a.i. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for interim measures filed by MANN+HUMMEL GmbH against SOTRAS - S.R.L. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219. Before any decision on the merits was rendered, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the claimant withdrew its application with the defendant's consent. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered the decision to be entered in the register, and addressed the question of court fee reimbursement.
Amycell LLC v.***
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT E - - – (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_132/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 APPLICANT/S TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC (Applicant) - 101 E. Park Blvd., Ste 600 - 75074 - Plano, Texas – US Represented by Thomas Lynker
Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT - – PL (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
UPC Decision UPC-000833 v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance (Paris Central Division) dated 29 November 2024, which had dismissed its revocation action against European Patent No. 2 875 740. After filing the appeal, NJOY informed the court that it would not pay the required appeal fee and no longer wished to pursue the appeal, expressly waiving its right to be heard. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible by default under Rule 229.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.625/CHE/2011 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application related to a method and kit for detecting Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using specific nucleotide sequences. Bigtec argued that their claimed sequences demonstrated unexpected effects over prior art, countering objections regarding lack of inventive step and patentability under Section 3(c). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
M/S Sukh Sagar v.Mr Dhanraj Poojari
M/S Sukh Sagar appealed the dismissal of its temporary injunction application against Mr Dhanraj Poojari, which sought to restrain infringement of their established trademark in the food and accommodation sector. The Karnataka High Court, while acknowledging the contentious issues requiring a full trial, chose to dispose of the appeal without ruling on the merits. Instead, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously, keeping all aspects of the dispute open.
Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. v.Satyendra Kumar Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an infringing trademark registration. The petitioner, a major online travel platform operating under 'GOIBIBO', successfully argued that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the petitioner's extensive goodwill and prior use since 2009, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the conflicting registration.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) seeking rectification of an earlier order dated 9 January 2025, which had dismissed ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a decision by default revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. BMW requested that the earlier order be supplemented to include a provision ordering ITCiCo to bear the costs of the set-aside proceedings. The respondent did not file any written comments despite being invited to do so. The panel addressed the scope of Rule 356 RoP regarding rectification and the nature of cost decisions in the context of internal procedural remedies.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1. Rule 30 RoP does not restrict the patentee in its request to amend the patent to the requirement that the application and the corresponding auxiliary requests must be directly related to the
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns ILME's request to stay the first-instance proceedings before the Local Division Munich pending the outcome of its appeal against a jurisdictional ruling. The Court of Appeal denied the stay request, finding that considerations of efficiency and the administration of justice favored seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question raised under Rule 19 RoP before the main hearing scheduled for June 17, 2025, rather than suspending the first-instance proceedings.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. had obtained a preliminary injunction from the Local Division Munich against Scandit AG for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of European Patent EP 3 866 051. After Scandit appealed, Hand Held Products requested withdrawal of the provisional measures request, to which Scandit consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA defends the institution of an IPR against Auto Telematics, arguing the patent owner waived procedural arguments and that the ’728 vehicle‑data‑logging patent is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Microsoft Corporation v.TS-Optics Corporation
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging TS‑Optics’ U.S. Patent 7,266,055 covering optical pickup actuators. The petition asserts that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references, including Choi, Ogata, Ikeda, Kamata, Santo, Kabasawa, Miura, and Sugiyama. Microsoft seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent covering driver behavior monitoring and accident detection technology. The Board found the claims were reasonably likely to be obvious over combinations of prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria GMBH successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Takeda Vaccines regarding a vaccine patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable over combinations of prior art, specifically citing evidence related to fetal protection and antibody transfer.
Psychotropic India Limited v.Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Psychotropic India Limited against Meridian Medicare Ltd. The court found that Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark 'TROMA' with malafide intent, capitalizing on the goodwill established by the petitioner in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the prior use and distinctiveness of the petitioner's marks (TROMANIL, TROMA), the court ruled that the registration held by the respondent was contrary to the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
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.