IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 124 of 140 · 4,175 total
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'WAHEED.' The court held that because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory notice regarding the impending expiry of the registration, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal despite the lapse of time. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative failure by the Registry can override strict procedural deadlines.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondents
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich ruled on a jurisdiction objection raised by the defendants in an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber was competent to hear the infringement case, rejecting the defendants' argument under Article 33(2) EPGÜ that the Düsseldorf chamber should have jurisdiction. The court reasoned that at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, no parallel action under Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f), (g) or (h) was pending before another first-instance chamber, since the prior interim measures application had already been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Meril Italy srl v.Respondents
This appeal concerned an order of the Central Division Paris (14 October 2024) granting Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB access to pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings between Meril Italy and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Meril Italy challenged the validity of the access request, arguing that Respondent 1's self-representation was impermissible under Art. 48 UPCA and that he could not validly represent SWAT Medical AB as its Board Chair. The Court of Appeal held that representation is a matter of public policy that may be examined at any time, and that neither self-representation nor representation by a person holding a high-level management position is permitted before the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 8, 9, 13, and 17‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367, which cover a zero‑profile expandable intervertebral spacer. The petition relies on the Palmatier patent as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Supponor Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG (formerly AIM Sport Vision AG) against five defendants regarding European Patent No. EP3295663. The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the action for lack of competence, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back. The present procedural order addresses AIM Sport's applications under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claims and grounds, and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant to the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar v.Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
The appellant filed an RTI seeking comprehensive information from ICMR regarding the legal framework, ownership, and formalities associated with protecting a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool developed by undergraduate students. The Commission found that the PIO had disclosed available public domain information, but directed ICMR to provide the Appellant with its detailed Intellectual Property Policy for complete transparency.
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v.Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to submit crucial documentation related to its '6E' trademark registration. The plaintiff sought leave under the CPC to place on record certificates that were only obtained after the initial filing of the suit, arguing they were not in their possession at the time of litigation commencement. Given the defendants had no objection, the court granted the application, allowing the evidence to be formally included in the ongoing trademark dispute.
ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against four ASUS entities. Before the written procedure concluded, Dolby withdrew its infringement action following an out-of-court settlement, and the ASUS defendants sought to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs and requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The court issued its decision in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed wishes.
XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against several ASUS entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its infringement action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The court issued an order confirming the withdrawals, that each party bears its own costs, and granting a 60% partial reimbursement of the court fees paid upon filing.
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This case concerns a cost-setting decision by the Local Chamber Munich following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy, sought reimbursement of approximately €91,568.76 in costs from Tiroler Rohre GmbH, who had been ordered to bear the costs after withdrawing the interim measures application. The respondent argued the costs were excessive and requested a cap of €30,000, contending that the number of representatives and hours billed were disproportionate to the case's complexity.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’889 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based autonomous‑vehicle control.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01574 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This decision allows the case to proceed to merits review.
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited v.Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited against Sammaan Capital Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement because the competing mark 'SAMMAAN' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' marks, and both parties operate in identical financial services sectors (granting loans). Despite initial challenges regarding the authenticity of the plaintiff's registration certificates, the court confirmed their validity through a status report from the Trade Marks Registry, thus upholding the injunction.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid patent, arguing obviousness over Okano and combinations with Withenshaw and Oringer. The petition also asserts that the claims require steps to be performed in order.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This preliminary procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, on February 7, 2025, in proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars entities and retailers. Dainese sought an extension of its deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and its Reply to the statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6, from February 13, 2025 to February 27, 2025, citing coordination with an EPO oral hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025. The Court granted the extension, finding that the same coordination reasons previously accepted for Defendant 1 applied equally to the Claimant, and emphasized the principle of parity between attacking and defending parties.
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.