IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 158 of 189 · 5,670 total
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
Navya Network Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Navya Network Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE'. The Controller raised objections regarding lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(k). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on cited prior art.
Magneti Marelli S.P.A. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Magneti Marelli appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application (No. 420/CHE/2009) on grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art citations. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to discuss their submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior arts. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unsupported by reasons and set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a Vehicle Monitoring System. The appellant argued that certain prior art documents did not qualify as prior art or failed to disclose the claimed invention's features, particularly data transmission capabilities when the vehicle is switched off. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited's application for the word mark 'KPN'. The court found that the initial decision failed to consider the appellant's defense of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the TM Act. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration on this crucial legal point.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. v.Kamal Bansal
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. against Kamal Bansal, directing the removal of the registered trademark 'VKG'. The court found that 'VKG' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark 'VKC', which had been used since 1985 in respect of footwear. Crucially, the court noted that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual use of the impugned mark, leading it to conclude that the registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Raghuvar (India) Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected its prior order of December 2, 2024 to include in the operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Heraeus Precious Metals) with Heraeus Electronics in the nullity counterclaim proceedings. The court also deferred its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application seeking to bar the nullity counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent based on alleged res judicata from a prior Federal Patent Court decision, ruling that a decision before the main hearing on July 1, 2025 would jeopardize the unified proceedings under Rule 363.2 RoP.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.N.J DIFFUSION SARL
GISELA MAYER GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by N.J DIFFUSION SARL concerning European Patent EP2404516, filed a request under Rule 158 RoP seeking an order requiring N.J DIFFUSION to provide security for costs. The Local Division of Paris rejected the request, finding that N.J DIFFUSION had sufficiently demonstrated its positive financial situation and that the estimated recoverable costs (capped at 56,000 euros) did not pose a genuine risk of non-recovery. The court also rejected GISELA MAYER's subsidiary request for leave to appeal, holding that such orders are case management orders subject to panel review under Rule 333 RoP.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv seeks IPR cancellation of Valtrus’s ’277 data‑center cooling patent, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated by Nakanishi and Bishop and obvious over their combination.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Valtrus’s 2005 cooling‑system patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Union If India And Ors
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed against an order rejecting its patent application for "AIR CONDITIONING APPARATUS" due to a lack of inventive step. The court found that the rejection order was unreasoned, cryptic, and failed to apply independent mind to the prior art documents cited. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh hearing.
Vennootschap v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application, which was based on a lack of inventive steps. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanically passed and violated natural justice because new prior art (D-2) was introduced at the hearing stage without being mentioned in the initial examination report. The Court agreed, finding no reasons in the impugned order.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
This matter before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division involves Andreas Gutzeit challenging a patent-related issue against The Controller General of Patents. The appellant raised a pure question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given the complexity and legal nature of the dispute, the court granted a final adjournment to allow both parties time to file their Written Notes of Submissions.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned a request by Panasonic Holdings Corporation to review the amount of court fee reimbursement following the withdrawal of its patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities. After an out-of-court settlement in late 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims, and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge had granted only 40%, and the panel confirmed this decision, finding that the exceptionally complex nature of the dispute justified the reduced reimbursement under Rule 370.9(e).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed patent infringement actions against Xiaomi and OPPO entities before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 024 163. After an out-of-court settlement at the end of 2024, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The rapporteur granted only 40%, and Panasonic sought review under Rule 333 EPGVerfO. The panel confirmed the 40% reimbursement, finding the case an extraordinary one under Rule 370.9(e) due to its exceptional complexity and the court's above-average workload.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Following an out-of-court settlement, the parties withdrew the infringement action and counterclaims concerning European Patent 2 197 132 and jointly requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the reporting judge's earlier order granting only a 40% reimbursement, holding that the exceptionally complex and intensively litigated nature of the dispute constituted an 'exceptional case' under Rule 370.9(e) EPGVerfO justifying a reduced fee refund.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
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.