IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 140 · 4,175 total
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
M/S Nice Confectionary v.M/S Nice Food Products
The petition challenged an arbitration award related to a trademark dispute. The claimant (M/s Nice Food Products) alleged that the petitioner (M/s Nice Confectionary), who used the trademark 'PRIKA'S CHAA-PAT', breached the conditions of a 2005 license agreement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy, together with Malikie Innovations, filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement that resolves their dispute over a smart‑home energy patent.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
The IPR concerning Patent 11,119,756 was terminated after Vivint Smart Home, NRG Energy and Malikie Innovations reached a confidential settlement before the trial was instituted.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s 9,318,609 FinFET patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier TSMC patents and related publications. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103, relying on Xu, Ching, and Huang references.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twenty claims of Malikie Innovations’ ’756 patent covering IoT software‑update control, citing obviousness over the Storto and Won publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Dassault Systèmes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Madhav Arora & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and allowing various procedural applications related to evidence and service.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et. al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC initiated infringement proceedings against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. None of the six defendants filed a statement of defence or counterclaim, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The claimant subsequently applied for withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal along with confidentiality for the settlement-related annexes and a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Genentech, Inc. - F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. - N.V. Organon
1. A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings in application of R. 197.3 RoP: a) First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” (cf. LD Munich 28 May 2025, UPC_CFI_63/2025 and LD Düsseldorf 16 April 2025, UPC_CFI_539/2024) decided to issue an “ex parte” order to preserve evidence/for inspection (R.194.1(d) RoP juncto R. 194.2 RoP). In this assessment, the Court should take into consideration the facts and evidence (i) brought forward in the application for an
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. a.o.
1. One of the circumstances relevant to admission to a confidentiality club is whether the individual is an employee of the party, an employee of the party’s economic unit or an employee of a third party. 2. If it is possible for a person who is not an employee of the party to join a confidentiality club, it is – depending on the relevant circumstances of the case – in any case justified for employees of the party or its economic unit to be admitted to a confidentiality club. UPC_CFI_7
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
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.