IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 137 of 140 · 4,175 total
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This cost determination proceedings order concerned the reimbursement of costs from prior interim injunction proceedings between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The parties had agreed on the principal amounts of recoverable costs, but Edwards sought additional interest at five percentage points above the base rate under § 247 BGB from the date of filing. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that reimbursable procedural costs and expenses do not bear interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Netgear group of companies to withdraw their action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd regarding European Patent Nos. 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The defendant had already consented to the withdrawal in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at €1 million, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid, with each party bearing their own costs.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321, accompanied by a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for leave to withdraw their respective claims. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 40% refund of the court fees paid by each party, with each side bearing its own costs.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of PayGeo’s ’296 mobile‑payment patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art and requests the Board to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
UPC Decision UPC-001054 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision delivered on 16 September 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The applicant argued that its default in failing to file a defence to revocation was due to its long-standing European Patent Attorney being unavailable because of illness. The respondent, BMW, objected that the applicant had not sufficiently explained its default or taken reasonable efforts to meet the deadline. The Court interpreted Rule 356(2) RoP to require the applicant to demonstrate that the default was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure beyond their control.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,
The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV , ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV , JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl , E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BI v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the Local Division Paris concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action. ArcelorMittal filed an infringement claim on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and their European distributors/dealers based on European Patent EP 3290200 relating to coated steel strips. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection regarding the language of the proceedings, and the Court addressed translation arrangements, granting the parties 10 days to agree on which annexes should be provided in English.
UPC Decision UPC-001047 v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.General Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.
Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v.Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.
Meril Italy srl, Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a cost application filed by the Meril entities against SWAT Medical AB, seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred during proceedings related to SWAT Medical's application for access to written pleadings and evidence (App_33484/2024), which had been rejected. The respondents argued the cost application was inadmissible because it was incorrectly filed under Rule 9 RoP rather than Rule 158 RoP. The applicants filed a further application (App_64037/2024) to rebut the inadmissibility argument. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur addressed the admissibility of the applicants' written comments and the procedural framework governing cost decisions following rejected access-to-register requests.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) v.Respondent
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation 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.