IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 159 of 189 · 5,670 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged a communication from respondent authorities that cancelled a scheduled hearing for its patent application, citing redundancy in cited prior art. The petitioner argued this cancellation was unjustifiable without following procedural mandates. The court found serious infractions of procedure and directed the matter to be reassigned and heard afresh.
M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills, directing The Registrar of Trademarks to permit the renewal of the trademark 'THENALEE.' Despite the mark having lapsed, the court relied on previous judgments stating that if a trademark is not removed from the register, the owner is entitled to seek renewal. However, the petitioner was put on strict terms, including paying costs and filing the application within 30 days, to prevent future negligence.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Shree Bhawani Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Shree Bhawani Agro Industries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of the trademark 'SHAKTIMAN' by the defendant on agricultural products like Rotavator Blades. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the urgency in protecting established brand rights.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., NanoString Technologies Inc. (Kostenfestsetzung)
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings UPC_CFI_2/2023. The applicants (Bruker entities) sought cost assessment of €337,431.50 following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the respondents' (10x Genomics and NanoString) application for interim measures. The court held that cost assessment proceedings are admissible following interim measures proceedings where the Court of Appeal has made a cost decision under Rule 242.1 EPGVerfO, and ordered the respondents to pay the assessed costs.
Biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Biolitec, an Austrian medical technology company and proprietor of European patent EP 3 685 783, sought provisional measures against the Lightguide companies for alleged infringement relating to their 'Infinity Side Fiber' product. The Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) dismissed the application, and Biolitec appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Biolitec failed to demonstrate that provisional measures were necessary and that proceedings on the merits could not be awaited.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) concerning European Patent No. 3 866 051. The order addresses case management matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the infringement claim and counterclaim, partial withdrawal of claims, deadlines for submissions, and confirmation of the oral hearing date.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Court decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec and Anthony Doors resolved their co‑development dispute through a settlement agreement that releases all claims and dismisses the related district‑court case. The settlement effectively ends the IPR2025‑00636 proceeding.
Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.
Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of ControlTec's refrigeration condensation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu and asserting that the examiner failed to consider key prior art.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully moved forward in its IPR against ControlTec, LLC's patent (7421847), leading to institution on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding the prior art reference 'Carter' analogous to condensation control in refrigerated cases.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner on claim 1 based on prior art combination arguments. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction regarding target detection, maintaining ordinary and customary meaning. This sets up an active trial phase to determine patent validity in UAV/Flight Control technology.
Smart Call Centre Solution Private Limited v.Harinder Singh And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages against the defendant for alleged disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. The court granted leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and dispensed with the pre-mediation process due to grave urgency. Subsequently, an interim order was passed restraining the defendant from disclosing or utilizing confidential client data and trade secrets.
Creativeland Advertising Private Limited v.Winzo Games Private Limited
In a dispute concerning the use and registration of the tagline "Jeeto Har Dinzo," Creativeland Advertising sought interim protection against Winzo Games, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trademark infringement. Despite the petitioner's request for immediate injunctions, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court appointed Justice Manmohan Singh as the arbitrator and directed him to expedite the proceedings within five days due to the imminent advertising campaign timeline.
Adyar Gate Hotels Limited v.ITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Mr.Amit Agarwal / M/s.Seetu Orbit Cable India Pvt. Limited v.Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta / M/s.ADL Orbit Cable (India)
The Madras High Court addressed applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand ORBIT/ADL ORBIT. While upholding the interim injunction against the use of the registered trademarks, the court recognized the potential hardship caused by immediate cessation of the trading name. Consequently, it granted a 60-day grace period for the defendant to transition its branding, balancing public interest in preventing consumer confusion with commercial viability.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC sought a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg, alleging that Speed Care's SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing infringed European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1, which protects clay-based hemostatic agents and devices. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, and therefore could not establish infringement.
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V. v.VusionGroup SA
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and procedural requirements for an appeal against a cost decision under Rule 221 RoP. VusionGroup SA sought a default decision alleging non-payment of an additional court fee by the Hanshow companies, and also sought dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible for lack of a separate notice of appeal and statement of grounds. The Court of Appeal rejected both applications, finding that the additional fee had been timely paid and that the application for leave to appeal itself constituted the notice of appeal and statement of grounds under Rule 221.2 RoP.
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.