IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 106 of 140 · 4,175 total
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Umesh Chauhan
Levi Strauss And Company filed a suit against Umesh Chauhan and Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa alleging infringement of their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to clothing and jeans. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient positive evidence to corroborate the local commissioner's report, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Nichia Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action brought by Nichia Corporation against Endrich Bauelemente Vertriebs GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 323 178 B1. The parties settled the dispute during the written procedure, and the court confirmed the settlement pursuant to its procedural rules. The court ordered partial reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff, amounting to 9,000 EUR, and set the dispute value at 1,000,000 EUR.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that rejected ILME's objection under Rule 19 RoP. Phoenix, the respondent, requested a three-week extension to file its response to the appeal brief. The Court of Appeal granted only a three-day extension, finding that a longer extension would contradict the principle of equality of arms and that the competence question raised should be resolved expeditiously given the pending main proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition reply contends that Halozyme’s hyaluronidase enzyme patent fails the written‑description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The company argues the disclosed genus is too broad and impossible to enable without undue experimentation.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00795, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon processors vital to national security. The petition contends the Director misapprehended the briefing and seeks referral to a merits panel.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,398,791 B1 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before the Board instituted the trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00807 after reaching a settlement, ending the Board proceeding without a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,676,877 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The USPTO denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and the denial of institution in IPR2025‑00795, leaving the original decision intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00682 and IPR2025-00683, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC submits an authorized response urging the Director to deny Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,198,686. The response rebuts the petitioner’s arguments on national security, settled expectations, duplication, and examiner error.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00682, leaving the earlier decision intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and have the PTAB evaluate the validity of its ‘686 semiconductor patent, citing national‑security stakes and examiner errors. The request stresses long‑standing settled expectations and a lack of prior enforcement.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
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 12,104,185 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims are overly broad, lack written description and enablement, and are obvious in view of prior art. The case is pending institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 26‑29 and 35‑39 of U.S. Patent 10,333,768, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art papers (Menon, Trefethen) combined with IBM documentation and the MPI standard. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems’ ’768 patent covering cluster‑computing architectures, arguing that the invention was disclosed years earlier in Cornell’s MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.
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.