IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 130 of 140 · 4,175 total
M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTD v.THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom patent holder KPN settled multi‑jurisdictional litigation by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement covering several audio/video coding patents. The agreement provides Samsung with a perpetual license and KPN with a covenant not to sue, and mandates dismissal of all pending lawsuits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Sanofi Mature IP
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott, Abbott B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68843/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, ULRICH HERPICH E.K, Alpinestars S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. , HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_472/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/01/2025 Order no. ORD_68844/2024 DAINESE S.p.A. - Plaintiff - against ALPINESTARS S.p.A. - Defendant 1 - and against ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, while confirming the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025. The written proceedings are set to close on May 14, 2025, and parties may submit substantive proposals for the interim hearing until May 23, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung’s Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
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.