IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 111 of 140 · 4,175 total
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The plaintiff Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together in a joint proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the rejection of his earlier appeal, which had been rejected on both maintainability grounds (Section 117A) and merits. The petitioner argued that patent errors existed in the interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically concerning technical effect and best mode. The Madras High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
AMST – SYSTEMTECHNIK GMBH v.Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order treating its Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn due to failure to request examination within the stipulated period. The court considered the sequence of events, noting that the petitioner intended to prosecute the application and citing previous judgments where similar facts led to non-withdrawal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.
Akebia Therapeutics, INC. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Akebia Therapeutics appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647000423). The rejection was primarily based on the argument that amending the original method-of-treatment claim to a pharmaceutical composition claim violated Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appeal concerned the non-payment of service tax on royalty charges received by M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. from group companies for using the 'TTK' logo. The Department alleged that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant argued that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs arising from prior infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal fully revoked the patent, the plaintiff (MSG Maschinenbau GmbH) withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaim proceedings, each with a value in dispute of €500,000. The defendant (EJP Maschinen GmbH) filed an application seeking reimbursement of its costs, including €20,797.00 for the infringement proceedings.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. , Astronergy Europe GmbH , Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH , Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_425/2024 ACT_42211/2024 App_54919/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS) 1. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., NO.1 Jisheng Road, Jianshan New Zone, 314415 Haining City, Zhejiang
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order by The Controller General of Patents and Designs, which had refused its patent application. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patent Act, citing concerns over public order or morality due to the nature of tobacco products. The appellant argued that the process—a method for preparing a sugar-containing syrup from Nicotiana species stalk (tobacco flavourant)—should not be rejected simply because all forms of tobacco are injurious. The court directed the Controller to take necessary instructions before further proceedings.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant, engaged in trading and distribution of consumer durables and health care products, was charged service tax on royalty received for using its logo "TTK" across group companies. The Department argued the logo functioned as a Trademark (IPR Service), while the Appellant contended it was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, exempting it from IPR service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in favor of the Appellant.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected a patent application related to microfluidic apparatuses for quantifying component concentration. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked independent application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of reasoned justification.
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
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.