IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 148 of 189 · 5,670 total
Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an opposition filed by the defendants against a patent infringement action. The court rejected the defendants' opposition, which challenged the UPC's jurisdiction on grounds that the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, and held that such arguments are not valid grounds for opposition under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged infringement for jurisdictional purposes and that proof of the representative's authorization for the opt-out withdrawal was not required unless contested.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) relating to European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly applied for leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fee paid for the counterclaim.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s ’345 patent on digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over Wright, Booth, Leyendecker and Jin. The petition requests institution and cancellation of all eleven claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Air Esscentials' fragrance‑diffuser patent, asserting that claims 1 and 3‑8 are obvious over prior‑art diffusers (Goubet, Kaiser, Gao‑2). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks to invalidate claims 7‑9 and 11 of Air Esscentials’ 9,527,094 patent on essential‑oil diffusers, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Proxense’s ’989 patent covering smartphone biometric authentication, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned to challenge claims of Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (10583449) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR against Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (9527094) for obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 7 based on Sevy, leading to trial institution.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries v.Trulines Technologies
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement of its drawing of a book binding machine. The appeal challenged the High Court's order which, while not setting aside the initial expert report, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain an additional expert opinion. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, finding it would cause confusion and prejudice.
Ashish Padia v.Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Ashish Padia, filed a commercial suit against Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd alleging infringement of several registered IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyright related to various bowl products. The court issued an order settling the issues and directing both parties to file their respective lists of witnesses and evidence for further proceedings.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v.Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on a Commercial Court's injunction, which had previously barred Bhole Nath Foods Ltd from using its 'Cheetal' trademark. The court found that there was no phonetic or visual similarity between 'Cheetal' and the respondent's 'Double Deer,' noting that the appellant held a valid registration dating back to 2007. This decision allows the appeal to proceed without immediate restriction on the use of the disputed mark.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others (including MediaTek Inc.)
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 792 100. MediaTek, which is domiciled in Taiwan (not a UPC Member State), filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP challenging the UPC's international jurisdiction. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, and that questions of MediaTek's liability as a joint perpetrator are matters for the merits, not jurisdiction.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This case concerns an application for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences in connection with its cost application in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The court granted Edwards' request for protection under Rule 262.2 RoP (restricting disclosure to the public and third parties) but rejected the request under Rule 262A RoP (restricting access vis-à-vis the opposing party), thereby granting Meril unrestricted access to the cost application while preventing disclosure to third parties or the public.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed an order by the Controller rejecting its patent application (3623/KOLNP/2013) due to lack of inventive steps. The court set aside the rejection, finding that certain cited prior art documents (D5 and D8) were inadmissible because they were published after the priority date.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
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.