IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 112 of 140 · 4,175 total
Grena Limited v.Axon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v.Sun Patent Trust
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.
Roku Inc, Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This procedural order concerns an objection filed by Roku under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants argued that the legal framework of the Unified Patent Court is incompatible with EU primary law (TFEU and TEU) and that Art. 267 TFEU is violated, also raising alleged breaches of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter and Art. 6(1) ECHR. The court rejected these arguments, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that such an objection cannot be successfully based on violations of the EU Charter or ECHR.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly requested leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fee to the defendant because the interim proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of withdrawal.
PRINOTH S.P.A. v.XELOM S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a world leader in the production of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, sought an ex parte order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative start-up belonging to the Technoalpin group. Prinoth alleged that Xelom's newly developed electric snow groomer (Snow Cat), which had been deployed at several ski resorts in Austria, South Tyrol, Trento, Stockholm, and Bolzano, infringed its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436 relating to snow groomers and their control methods. The Presiding Judge determined that the conditions for extreme urgency were not met and appointed a Judge Rapporteur to convene the applicant for further clarifications regarding documents and search keywords.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries v.Trulines Technologies
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement of its drawing of a book binding machine. The appeal challenged the High Court's order which, while not setting aside the initial expert report, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain an additional expert opinion. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, finding it would cause confusion and prejudice.
Ashish Padia v.Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Ashish Padia, filed a commercial suit against Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd alleging infringement of several registered IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyright related to various bowl products. The court issued an order settling the issues and directing both parties to file their respective lists of witnesses and evidence for further proceedings.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v.Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on a Commercial Court's injunction, which had previously barred Bhole Nath Foods Ltd from using its 'Cheetal' trademark. The court found that there was no phonetic or visual similarity between 'Cheetal' and the respondent's 'Double Deer,' noting that the appellant held a valid registration dating back to 2007. This decision allows the appeal to proceed without immediate restriction on the use of the disputed mark.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg addressed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP concerning international jurisdiction. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 792 100, sought an injunction against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. for alleged infringement relating to Xiaomi smartphones equipped with MediaTek Dimensity processors. The court examined the interplay between Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2), to determine whether the UPC has international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the EU for patent infringements committed in UPC Member States.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, the Local Division Munich addressed competing applications for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril in connection with Edwards' cost application. The court distinguished between Rule 262A RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis parties) and Rule 262.2 RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis the public and third parties), ultimately granting Edwards protection under Rule 262.2 RoP while rejecting the Rule 262A RoP requests of both parties.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed an order by the Controller rejecting its patent application (3623/KOLNP/2013) due to lack of inventive steps. The court set aside the rejection, finding that certain cited prior art documents (D5 and D8) were inadmissible because they were published after the priority date.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Arkose Labs' CAPTCHA‑related patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as the Lim patent and its combinations with Lillibridge and Guthrie.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals because the petition failed to provide adequate claim construction rationale. The Board found that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for 'risk indices' were too ambiguous and insufficiently supported by prior art.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
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.