IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 189 · 5,670 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Dassault Systèmes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Madhav Arora & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and allowing various procedural applications related to evidence and service.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC filed infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European Patent EP3286270 against six defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities. No statement of defence or counterclaim was filed by any defendant, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, ordered confidentiality of certain annexes, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. initiated infringement proceedings before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague against Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. After the Defendants failed to file any statement of defence or counterclaim, the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings, and the Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared certain confidential annexes restricted to the parties and the Court, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€96,600) to the Claimant.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under R. 197.3 RoP regarding orders to preserve evidence and for inspection issued ex parte in favor of Genentech and Roche concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon, who were planning to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed with Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure regarding two ex parte orders (an Order to Preserve Evidence and an Order for Inspection) issued on 30 May 2025 in connection with European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon, which planned to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed by Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report and for the parties to initiate infringement proceedings.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court, related to main proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, but the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application and declared the proceedings terminated without a costs decision.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' 7,936,736 B2 patent, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
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.