IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 189 · 5,670 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.
Bird Buddy, Inc. v.Perkins, Frederick
Bird Buddy files an IPR petition challenging six claims of its ‘242 smart bird‑feeder patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier bird‑feeder and electronics references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,107,768, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering chip‑package technology.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 47 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’104 patent covering hands‑free audio messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed a petition for IPR of IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 8,582,789 covering a hearing‑enhancement system, seeking cancellation of all 76 challenged claims as obvious over Anderson and other prior‑art patents.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of MeshDynamics' ’762 VoIP mesh‑network patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition includes claim constructions and requests the Board to institute review.
Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed settlement discussions between Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The defendant proposed settling the suit by conceding the plaintiff's proprietorship in the 'BABAJI' trademark, aligning with a previous court arrangement. The court noted that this proposal was made without prejudice to other pending litigations, requiring the plaintiff to take instructions before deciding whether to accept the offer.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790 B1, which relates to a nail for use in a nail gun made predominantly of lignocellulosic material. The claimant attacked claims 1-4 and 7-13 of the patent as granted for lack of novelty and inventive step, while leaving claims 5 and 6 unchallenged. The Court of First Instance partially revoked the patent, maintaining it only in the form of Auxiliary Request III with claims 5 and 6 unchanged as granted, and ordered costs to be borne 70% by the defendant and 30% by the claimant.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH & Others
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network‑1’s eUICC security patent (U.S. 12,166,869) faces a petition from Samsung. The patent owner argues the references either teach away or lack the required cryptographic linkage, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC security patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering secure profile provisioning and IMSI encryption.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Lincoln Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'Glypanta'. The court ruled that despite initial objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the applicant was entitled to proceed with the advertisement of the mark. This decision underscores the importance of following procedural steps like publication even when substantive objections exist.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano (Marciuliano Attrezzature)
The Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division) issued a default judgment finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed European Patent EP 3691454 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for shaping pizza dough. The defendants, who had been served but failed to appear or file any defense, were ordered to cease manufacturing and distributing the infringing 'Pizza Former' machine, with additional remedies including destruction of infringing products, publication of the decision, and provisional damages.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. (Claimant) sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to submit a further written pleading in response to arguments raised by The Walt Disney Company and related entities (Defendants) in their rejoinder dated 20 October 2025 in the infringement action concerning EP 2 449 782. The Defendants did not oppose the request. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, permitting the Claimant to respond to the Defendants' non-infringement and FRAND-related arguments until 20 November 2025.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
This case concerns the disclosure of an expert report obtained through an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent No. 3 212 356 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court ordered that pricing information and bank details in invoices be redacted from the expert report before disclosure to the patent holder, while the remainder of the report was to be disclosed. The court also lifted the confidentiality order for the non-redacted portions in relation to the applicant.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Westinghouse (Wabtec) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Railware’s 9,517,782 patent covering a railway block‑release system, arguing the claims are obvious over public FRA reports and several secret‑code patents.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 47835 patent covering railway block‑and‑unblock code systems. The petition asserts obviousness over the FRA‑Report and several secret‑code references.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.
M/S Metrix Research And Analytics Private Limited v.Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi
The plaintiff, a market research company, sued its former employee, Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi, alleging that he misused confidential trade secrets and proprietary methodologies after resigning to benefit his new employer. The court examined the allegations of misappropriation but found the evidence led by the plaintiff to be deficient and conjectural.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. v.Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes between M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. and Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors. The dispute centers on the use and protection of trademarks, specifically 'GHADI' and 'GHAR'. While several interlocutory applications were disposed of, the court formally allowed the suit to proceed, setting timelines for both parties to file their written statements and replies, thereby moving the matter into the substantive litigation phase.
Irish Distillers International Limited v.Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Irish Distillers International Limited, leading to the cancellation of the 'BLUE SPOT' trademark registration held by Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the mark for over five years from its grant date. Given the lack of market presence and unrebutted evidence of non-use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reinforcing the statutory grounds for trademark removal.
Pachranga International Inc. v.M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark dispute, Pachranga International Inc. sought interim relief against M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd for the continued use of the mark 'PACHRANGA' on social media and in its corporate name. The Court directed the defendant to ensure all remaining infringing listings are removed within one week upon receiving specific examples from the plaintiff. However, the court deferred a final decision on the issue of the defendant using the trademark as part of its corporate name, requiring further consideration after the injunction application is determined.
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd v.Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the ongoing IP infringement suit filed by Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd against Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set out a detailed schedule for the parties to file their written statements and replication, while also addressing procedural matters regarding document filing and translation.
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.