IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 129 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,798,006 was met with a detailed response from Four Batons Wireless, arguing the denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and APA. The Board has not yet ruled on the Director Review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,798,006 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper application of the Fintiv factors.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute involved applications seeking rejection of plaint and revocation of leave to sue in a copyright infringement matter. The fifth defendant argued lack of territorial jurisdiction and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose within Chennai, it retained jurisdiction, thus dismissing both applications.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed a patent infringement action on 17 July 2024 before the Local Division Munich against six defendants concerning European patent EP 2 286 325. After reaching a settlement with Defendant 1 (Shenzhen Transsion Holdings), Qualcomm withdrew the action on 17 January 2025 and applied for a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of €18,600.00 to the Claimant.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
1. If the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State (here: Germany), the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK part of the patent in suit. This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit. Even then, as regards the infringement action concerning the United Kingdom, the Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The terms used in a
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung Electronics and Headwater Research settled their disputes across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00482, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner also withdrew its request for Director Review or Rehearing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to review Ningde Amperex’s 10,833,363 battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
CosMX seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde’s battery patent. The request argues that conflicting claim constructions in two parallel petitions require denial under the Director’s guidance and discretionary authority.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s attempt to overturn a PTAB institution of a lithium‑battery patent, arguing the parallel‑petition issue is moot and the Board’s decision was proper and efficient.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The USPTO denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00431, leaving the institution of Ningde Amperex's battery patent intact.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology's lithium‑ion battery patent, arguing that the claimed electrolyte ratios and electrode compaction ranges are obvious in view of Zeng, Sunose, Matsuoka, Kim and other references. The petitioner seeks a finding that all 17 claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the challenged claims related to lithium-ion battery electrolytes were obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully argued that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would be motivated to combine elements from Zeng, Sunose, and Matsuoka to achieve improved performance. This ruling advances the scope of obviousness findings in advanced energy storage technology.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement related to 'behind the scenes (BTS)' footage from the film "NAANUM ROWDY DHAAN". The fifth defendant challenged the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit filed by Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, arguing lack of territorial nexus and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, it retained territorial jurisdiction, thus dismissing the challenges.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 1 838 002, in which patent attorney Christian Läufer requested access to court filings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure as a member of the public for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) raised objections to the request. The presiding judge granted the applicant access to the filings and annexes in the counterclaim for revocation workflow, but not to the infringement proceedings file or other workflows.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendant in infringement proceedings for the Local Chamber Munich to order the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant argued that the plaintiff, a small enterprise, lacked sufficient financial means, citing a low credit rating and recent operating losses. The court ordered security for costs but reduced the amount based on equity considerations, while rejecting the plaintiff's application for legal aid because it was capable of bearing both its own costs and the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The plaintiff Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. brought the action against three ASUS entities. The presiding judge scheduled an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich, with deadlines for parties to submit proposed topics and cost estimates.
UPC Decision UPC-000979 v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a cost reimbursement application filed by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited following the withdrawal of its request for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant initially sought 60% reimbursement of court fees but, following a court indication, amended its request to seek 20% reimbursement pursuant to Rule 370.11 in conjunction with Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, applied analogously. The Local Division Munich found that Rule 370.9(b) RoP, which literally governs fee reimbursement upon withdrawal of a 'claim' under Rule 265, applies analogously to the withdrawal of a request for interim measures due to a regulatory gap and comparable interest situation.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
The defendant in an underlying patent infringement proceeding applied for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and recent operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the application and alternatively sought legal aid. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the plaintiff to provide security in a reduced amount, finding that although the plaintiff qualified as a small enterprise with insufficient assets, equity considerations and the principle of effective access to justice warranted a reduction below the applicant's requested EUR 257,000. Legal aid was denied because the plaintiff was capable of bearing both its own costs and the reduced security.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Sinotechnix's LED illumination lens patent, arguing that prior‑art lenses (Tawa, Shikama, Scharf) render the claims obvious or anticipated. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
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.