IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 114 of 140 · 4,175 total
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 4108782. Following the permitted withdrawal of the appeals against three contested orders of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Hamburg), 10x Genomics and Harvard College applied for partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal granted the applications, ordering 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, finding that the requirements of Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure were met.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim. The panel decided to separate the proceedings with respect to national parts of the traditional European bundle patent that were not yet ready for decision, particularly those concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), pending the European Court of Justice's decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court reasoned that withholding a decision on the merits for national parts over which it had jurisdiction would unjustifiably delay enforcement of the claimant's potential patent rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1. The Local Division Mannheim addressed the question of which substantive law applies to alleged infringing acts of traditional European bundle patents in relation to the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The court held that the UPCA substantive law applies to acts committed after 1 June 2023 and to ongoing acts that continued after that date, while substantive national laws apply to acts committed before that date. The court also ruled that the right to information under the UPCA encompasses time periods predating the entry into force of the UPCA.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that unusually instituted review of Sandpiper's expired CDN patent. The brief argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations policy and erred in fact finding.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, (Govt. Of India)
In this writ petition, Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya sought judicial intervention to expedite the pending registration of his trademark 'LAKHOTIA DURGA' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that previous opposition had been resolved through a compromise and there was no longer any impediment to registration. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the prayer, issuing a mandamus-like direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.
Ambika Ramesh v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
Ambika Ramesh filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding her registered Ayurvedic product trademarks. Despite inadvertently missing the renewal deadline, she submitted a detailed representation outlining her grievances. The Kerala High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within 60 days, ensuring due process.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , Pfizer AB , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , Pfizer, Inc. , BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
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.