IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 122 of 140 · 4,175 total
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
AYLO Premium Ltd filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, with DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendant. AYLO subsequently requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, seeking at least EUR 400,000 from DISH Technologies, citing alleged insolvency risks supported by SEC filings of DISH's parent companies. The Court invited further observations from both parties and held an interim conference before referring the matter to a full panel, which issued its order on 18 February 2025.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.
IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g
Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation's attempt to invalidate Edge Networking Systems' patent (10893095) regarding Software Defined Networks was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Microsoft failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically concerning 'sandboxing operating system' principles.
Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited v.Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a rectification application filed by Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited against Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. The court found that the mark registered by the respondent was deceptively similar to the applicant's long-standing trademark 'Shrinath'. Crucially, the applicant successfully demonstrated prior use of the mark since 1978, establishing significant goodwill and reputation in the travel industry. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the infringing registration, reinforcing the importance of proving continuous prior usage rights.
Cadbury Uk Limited v.ITC Limited
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks be formally included in the proceedings. This procedural step ensures all relevant parties are involved in the ongoing litigation between Cadbury UK Limited and ITC Limited. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner liberty to carry out necessary informal amendments to their case filings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 5th, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys' Director Review request, arguing the PTAB’s referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that a broad stipulation eliminates any need for duplicate litigation. The petition emphasizes that incorporation‑by‑reference arguments are irrelevant to institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
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.