IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 121 of 140 · 4,175 total
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a patent dispute involving Revvo and Cerebrum, remanding the case for further proceedings after clarifying that petitioners must explain inconsistent claim construction positions across forums.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several prior art references.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR in a dispute involving Tire Stickers LLC and Revvo Technologies, citing Petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal venues.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.The Controller Of Patents
The Regents of the University of California appealed the refusal of their patent application concerning a recombinant Salmonella microorganism based live vaccine. The Controller argued that the broad scope of the claims led to two major issues: first, they potentially covered naturally occurring loss-of-function variants, making them non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act; and second, the complete specification lacked sufficient disclosure and clarity for the wide range of organisms claimed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure and non-patentability.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.M.M. Oil Traders
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers (Bhagat) v.Respondent
Bhagat Textile Engineers applied for access to documents and written submissions in a revocation counterclaim filed by Himson Engineering Private Limited against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP214548. Bhagat sought the documents to substantiate a renewed request for suspension of its appeal in a parallel infringement action. The Milan Local Division denied the application, finding that the information was obtainable through other channels and that granting access would compromise the integrity of the proceedings.
Cretes NV v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the streamlining of parallel infringement and revocation proceedings between CRETES NV (plaintiff/counterclaim defendant) and HYLER BV (defendant/counterclaim plaintiff) relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. The Court addresses a general procedural request filed by CRETES under Rule 9 RoP regarding the alignment of deadlines between the infringement action (UPC_CFI_216/2024) and the revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_556/2024). Both parties had previously agreed that the date of notification of the Statement of Defence (September 16, 2024) would serve as the determining date for deadlines in both proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung Electronics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its life‑signs detector patent. The petition alleges examiner error, improper reliance on settled expectations, and due‑process violations. A stay of the parallel district‑court case is also argued.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr
The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. initiated legal proceedings against Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl and others concerning a Suit Patent related to an 8/16 modulation method used in data recording on discs. The court addressed complex issues, including the patent's validity under various sections of the Patents Act (such as novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, and non-patentability). Ultimately, after analyzing infringement claims and the defendants' conduct, the judgment focused on determining appropriate FRAND royalty rates for the patented technology.
Evonik Operations Gmbh And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
This appeal was filed by Evonik Operations Gmbh challenging an order dated May 2, 2023, which rejected Patent Application No. 201837000665. The court directed the appellants to file an Informal Paper Book and listed the matter for April 2025.
Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited v.Salahudeen Abdhullatheef
The Madras High Court addressed two petitions concerning trademark rectification in Class 9, involving Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited and Salahudeen Abdhullatheef. The court allowed the petition filed by Solidaire to expunge a prior mark (TM No.3882705), finding that its use predated the challenged registration. Conversely, the court dismissed Abdhullatheef's petition seeking rectification of his own mark, concluding that Solidaire's mark was deceptively similar and possessed superior priority in both use and registration.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of the court file under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in a preliminary evidence preservation proceeding relating to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The patent holder SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. raised no objection, noting that Chainzone had already been admitted as an intervenor in related proceedings before the Local Chamber Vienna. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering that file inspection be provided subject to redaction of personal data to be identified by SWARCO within ten days.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim related to European Patent No. 2 043 492 before the Local Chamber Munich. Dyson Technology Limited sought leave to withdraw its infringement action, while SharkNinja sought leave to withdraw its revocation counterclaim, with both parties confirming they had reached an out-of-court settlement and waiving their respective claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to each side.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2025 APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) - Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam - NL Represented by Ricardo Dijkstra RELEVA
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
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.