IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 125 of 189 · 5,670 total
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 claims.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Allani’s ’058 patent covering mobile web navigation. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues indefiniteness of key claim language.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India
This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd and Others
This is a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680, which relates to video streaming technology. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants including Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Aylo Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The order at hand is a preparatory ruling by the judge-rapporteur structuring the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for May 7-8, 2025, identifying key issues for discussion including claim construction, the formulation of the plaintiffs' requests, and questions regarding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European patent n° 2 403 266. Samsung, as applicant, requested a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all Defendants, citing that service had not yet been effected on Defendant 1 in Korea and that other Defendants had been served on different dates. The parties agreed to a virtual service date of 5 May 2025, and the Presiding Judge granted the request, setting the deadline for the Statement of Defence to 5 August 2025 for all Defendants uniformly.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
The defendants (Nintendo) requested that certain sales and profit figures in their Statement of Defense and Exhibit BP08 be declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP, with access restricted to two named persons from the claimant. The claimant (Malikie Innovations) sought to extend access to two additional employees and challenged the scope of the confidentiality order regarding information obtained from third parties. The Court granted the confidentiality request, extended access to the two additional claimant employees, and held that the claimant bears the burden of verifying whether third parties disclosing such information are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. The court granted the plaintiff's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information, classifying certain cost-related details (invoice numbers, hourly rates, hours worked) submitted in cost determination proceedings as confidential. The court found the plaintiff's interest in confidentiality outweighed the defendants' interest in full access, particularly since the plaintiff did not seek to restrict the circle of entitled persons but only to prevent disclosure to third parties.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Following the parties' joint request, the court allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by Pfizer against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimants/counterclaimants.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. Following a January 14, 2025 decision that largely upheld the infringement claim and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, the defendants sought recovery of 9,732.21 EUR in costs. The court found the defendants had erroneously used a consolidated dispute value of 2,000,000 EUR instead of the 1,000,000 EUR value for the infringement claim alone, and awarded only 4,866.11 EUR in recoverable costs.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by various Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Both parties jointly requested the withdrawal, which the court allowed, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimants/Counterclaimants, with no cost decision required.
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.