IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 112 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’702 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing multiple prior‑art camera‑technology references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Universal Corporation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Universal Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, noting the long history and exponential growth of the 'Moti Mahal' brand since 1920. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill, the defendant was immediately restrained from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL'.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and Others (STADA Nordic ApS and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1, titled 'Kreiselpumpenaggregat' (centrifugal pump assembly), directed at heating circulation pumps. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent by offering and distributing heating circulation pumps in Germany, France, and Italy, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for revocation. The defendant was ordered to cease infringement, provide information, render accounts, recall infringing products, and pay provisional damages of EUR 64,000.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., requested an extension of the deadline for filing its reply brief by one week until 19 May 2025, due to delayed access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence and the late service of the Counterclaim for Revocation. The court granted the extension, finding it justified under the circumstances, and noted that the Defendants did not oppose the request.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung (on behalf of Apple) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references. No secondary considerations are presented.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the review and find all claims unpatentable.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple petitions to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR to cancel all 23 claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple succeeded in invalidating Omni MedSci's wearable physiological measurement patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims obvious over prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding claims 1, 2, 7 and 15‑23 unpatentable while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR of Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable under §103, based on obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘299 patent was decided with all challenged claims (7, 10‑14) found unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a partial victory over Omni MedSci's wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while leaving 11 claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple successfully invalidated Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent in a final PTAB decision, finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The Board affirmed claim constructions and applied the petitioner’s alternative argument on the combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple successfully challenged Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent. The PTAB affirmed the claim construction and held all 23 claims obvious over prior art. No further briefing was authorized.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
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.