IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 138 of 189 · 5,670 total
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone successfully instituted an IPR against Airspace Systems regarding claim 21 of patent 10713959. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art reference Beard. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to trial, focusing on obviousness in low-altitude aircraft identification systems.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH filed an application for interim measures before the Local Chamber Munich alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219 by SOTRAS - S.R.L. After the respondent filed an opposition, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting the applicant to withdraw its application. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees (€6,600.00) to the applicant, while finding no inter-party cost reimbursement.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected the Defendant's application for re-establishment of rights (R.320 RoP) after his representative missed the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action concerning EP1993350. The court found that although the representative's illness on 24-27 February 2025 was accepted as a cause outside his control, he had not taken all due care to ensure the deadline would be met, given his prior experience with UPC proceedings, the explicit warning about default judgment, and evidence that he was able to submit a brief to the EPO on 27 February 2025. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC (Claimant) filed a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957 against three Texas Instruments entities before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant requested permission to file a further written submission under Rules 12.5 and 36 RoP, arguing that the Defendants' rejoinder raised new and technically complex points requiring a written response. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient substantiation and that the allegedly new arguments were in fact responses to the Claimant's own prior submissions.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP after his representative filed the Statement of Defence nine days late due to claimed illness. The court found that the representative, an experienced patent attorney familiar with UPC proceedings, failed to take all due care to ensure deadlines would be met in the event of his incapacity. Consequently, the Statement of Defence was deemed not filed, and a decision by default was ordered in the infringement action concerning EP1993350.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC (EP 2 875 740)
The President of the Court of Appeal issued a decision by default rejecting an appeal as inadmissible after the appellant, NJOY Netherlands B.V., failed to pay the required court fee of 20,000 EUR within the prescribed 14-day period. The appellant had filed an appeal against the Court of First Instance's dismissal of its revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 875 740, but subsequently informed the Court that it did not wish to pursue the appeal and waived its right to be heard.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.625/CHE/2011 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application related to a method and kit for detecting Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using specific nucleotide sequences. Bigtec argued that their claimed sequences demonstrated unexpected effects over prior art, countering objections regarding lack of inventive step and patentability under Section 3(c). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
M/S Sukh Sagar v.Mr Dhanraj Poojari
M/S Sukh Sagar appealed the dismissal of its temporary injunction application against Mr Dhanraj Poojari, which sought to restrain infringement of their established trademark in the food and accommodation sector. The Karnataka High Court, while acknowledging the contentious issues requiring a full trial, chose to dispose of the appeal without ruling on the merits. Instead, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously, keeping all aspects of the dispute open.
Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. v.Satyendra Kumar Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an infringing trademark registration. The petitioner, a major online travel platform operating under 'GOIBIBO', successfully argued that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the petitioner's extensive goodwill and prior use since 2009, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the conflicting registration.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) sought rectification of an order dismissing ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333, arguing that the omission of a costs provision constituted an obvious slip. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that the omission of a costs decision was not a rectifiable clerical error under Rule 353 RoP, and that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not requiring a separate costs decision.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.'s application for leave to change its claims in an infringement action concerning EP 2 787 541. The court allowed the patentee to amend its infringement claims to align with auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30 RoP in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, to incorporate amendments made by the EPO Opposition Division to claim 13, and to add a new allegedly infringing embodiment (ASTRO N8 Bifacial Series) that came to light after the original filing.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning ILME's request to stay first instance proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich pending the outcome of its appeal. ILME had appealed the Local Chamber's rejection of its R. 19 RoP objection regarding the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay request, finding that judicial efficiency was better served by seeking a prompt decision on the jurisdiction question rather than suspending the first instance proceedings.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal request under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure. Hand Held Products, Inc. requested withdrawal of its request for interim measures regarding EP 3 866 051, and Scandit AG consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the appeal proceedings terminated, finding no need for a cost decision since neither party filed a cost request.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
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.