IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 138 of 140 · 4,175 total
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.
Global Health Limited And Anr v.John Doe And Ors
Global Health Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against defendants in a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of personality rights. The plaintiffs sought relief due to the circulation of fabricated 'deep fake' videos featuring Dr. Naresh Trehan, which used the protected brand name 'MEDANTA.' The court directed the defendants to immediately remove or disable the infringing content within strict timeframes, recognizing the irreparable harm caused by the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and goodwill.
Abacus Montessori School v.Abacus International Montessori School; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Abacus Montessori School, a long-standing educational institution, by ordering the expungement of a conflicting trademark registration held by Abacus International Montessori School. The court found that despite geographical proximity and differences in scope (e.g., 'International'), the identical use of the mark 'ABACUS' for similar educational services created a likelihood of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of prior user rights and established goodwill over subsequent registrations.
Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Yash Arora As Trading As Siddhi Vinayak Traders And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, 'GREEN DIAMOND.' The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and identical to the petitioner's established trademark 'DIAMOND,' which had significant goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market since 1975. Crucially, the judgment highlighted the dishonest adoption by the respondent, who was an ex-distributor of the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle against riding on a competitor's reputation.
RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.
Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
Scientific Drilling International has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Gunnar LLLP’s ‘780 patent on magnetic ranging while drilling. The petition alleges lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over several prior‑art patents.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
M/s.TTK Prestige Limited v.Sarvodaya Industries
M/s. TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Sarvodaya Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'PROTEIN' to infringe upon the registered trademarks and artistic logo of 'PRESTIGE'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which the court subsequently recorded and decreed.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case was filed for a permanent injunction against NATCO PHARMA for infringing on Novartis's Indian Patent No. 233161. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the proceedings.
Apollo Pipes Ltd v.Nirmal Polymers
Apollo Pipes Ltd filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Nirmal Polymers for infringing its well-known trademarks ('APOLLO', 'APL APOLLO'). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks like 'A ONE APOLLO' in relation to PVC pipes and building material products, causing financial loss and damaging goodwill. The court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of Apollo Pipes Ltd.
Under Armour, Inc v.Pro-Train Sports Llp & Ors
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Under Armour against Pro-Train Sports LLP, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical trade and business operations, including the use of similar logos (a bull), the court opted not to grant the exemption. Instead, it referred the matter to Pre-Institution Mediation, setting a date for January 15, 2025.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung seeks to uphold an IPR institution on Wilus’s Wi‑Fi packet‑format patent, while Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the institution, arguing errors on public accessibility, discretionary denial, and claim‑construction inconsistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Wilus's patent 11,159,210. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s IPR petition was granted, instituting review of all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G paging patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art You, Liu, and Mallick.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.