IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 161 of 189 · 5,670 total
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR in a dispute involving Tire Stickers LLC and Revvo Technologies, citing Petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal venues.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.The Controller Of Patents
The Regents of the University of California appealed the refusal of their patent application concerning a recombinant Salmonella microorganism based live vaccine. The Controller argued that the broad scope of the claims led to two major issues: first, they potentially covered naturally occurring loss-of-function variants, making them non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act; and second, the complete specification lacked sufficient disclosure and clarity for the wide range of organisms claimed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure and non-patentability.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.M.M. Oil Traders
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in which the Local Division Düsseldorf addressed the Applicant's request to exchange a deposited enforcement security of EUR 2,000,000 with a bank guarantee. The Court found the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Registrar to repay the deposit to the Applicant, subject to the expiry of the review period.
Bhagat Textile Engineers - Application for Access to Case File (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Bhagat Textile Engineers, a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the case file of a counterclaim for revocation filed by Himson Engineering in an infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile regarding patent EP2145848. Bhagat sought access to support its pending appeal and suspension request in a parallel proceeding where it had been found liable for infringement. The Milan Local Division rejected the application, holding that the information sought could be obtained through published court decisions or would be available with the final decision, and that the integrity of the proceedings outweighed Bhagat's interest in using the documents for defense in another forum.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement action UPC_CFI_216/2024 and revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_556/2024 relating to European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152 owned by Cretes NV. Cretes sought to strike Hyler's Rejoinder submissions filed one day late, and alternatively to strike new non-infringement arguments, a new exhibit, and a new non-infringement claim introduced by Hyler. The court dismissed the primary request to strike the entire Rejoinder but granted the subsidiary request, excluding paragraphs 506-510, exhibit I.21, and the new non-infringement claim from further consideration.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung Electronics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its life‑signs detector patent. The petition alleges examiner error, improper reliance on settled expectations, and due‑process violations. A stay of the parallel district‑court case is also argued.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
Otter Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SafeTray’s ’691 patent covering tablet‑grip devices, arguing the invention was well known and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr
The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. initiated legal proceedings against Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl and others concerning a Suit Patent related to an 8/16 modulation method used in data recording on discs. The court addressed complex issues, including the patent's validity under various sections of the Patents Act (such as novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, and non-patentability). Ultimately, after analyzing infringement claims and the defendants' conduct, the judgment focused on determining appropriate FRAND royalty rates for the patented technology.
Evonik Operations Gmbh And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
This appeal was filed by Evonik Operations Gmbh challenging an order dated May 2, 2023, which rejected Patent Application No. 201837000665. The court directed the appellants to file an Informal Paper Book and listed the matter for April 2025.
Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited v.Salahudeen Abdhullatheef
The Madras High Court addressed two petitions concerning trademark rectification in Class 9, involving Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited and Salahudeen Abdhullatheef. The court allowed the petition filed by Solidaire to expunge a prior mark (TM No.3882705), finding that its use predated the challenged registration. Conversely, the court dismissed Abdhullatheef's petition seeking rectification of his own mark, concluding that Solidaire's mark was deceptively similar and possessed superior priority in both use and registration.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. – Request for Inspection of Files (UPC_CFI_156/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. for inspection of files under Rule 262.1.b of the Rules of Procedure in evidence preservation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 643 717. The court granted Chainzone's request for file inspection, finding no reasons to deny access, and allowed SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. ten days to identify any personal data to be redacted under data protection regulations.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH (EP 2 043 492)
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an infringement action and a revocation counterclaim relating to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, with all parties waiving their asserted claims. The court permitted the withdrawals under Rule 370.9.b.i of the Rules of Procedure and ordered each party to receive 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Aarke AB v.Sodastream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division finding it had infringed EP 1 793 917 and granting an injunction. Before the appeal was decided, Aarke applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision was necessary since Sodastream filed no comments or cost requests, and ordered 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Aarke.
Network System Technologies LLC v.AUDI AG
This case concerns an application by Network System Technologies LLC (NTS) for the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of patent infringement actions against AUDI AG. The Court of Appeal had previously ordered NST to provide security for costs totaling EUR 500,000 across three proceedings. After NTS withdrew the infringement actions and the Munich Local Division closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and return of the deposited security amounts.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG (Application for Release of Security)
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for the release of security deposits it had previously been ordered to provide to Volkswagen AG in connection with infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. After NST withdrew its infringement actions before the Munich Local Division, which closed the proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered the full return of the deposited amounts (totaling EUR 500,000) to NST.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V. filed an ex parte application to preserve evidence and inspect premises of P.T.S. Machinery B.V. based on alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 171 996. After the Court partly granted the application and an expert conducted an inspection, Mammoet sought to extend access to the expert's Written Report and its Attachments to four named employees. The Court granted the request, finding no significant risk of trade secret disclosure and noting the Defendant's non-objection.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both Dyson (plaintiff) and SharkNinja (defendant/counterclaimant) applied to withdraw their respective infringement action and revocation counterclaim after reaching an out-of-court settlement. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, noted the parties' waivers of claims, and ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO (Application for Public Access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in ArcelorMittal v.XPENG Group)
POSCO, a steel manufacturer and opponent of ArcelorMittal's European Patent EP 3 290 200 at the European Patent Office, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to the written pleadings and evidence in the infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. ArcelorMittal opposed the application, arguing lack of direct interest and lack of a reasoned request. The Judge-Rapporteur granted POSCO access to the Statement of Claim and supporting exhibits, except for Exhibit 8 which was subject to a confidentiality order.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
SWARCO FUTURIT, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 concerning color and light mixing collective optics for LED display panels, filed an application for evidence preservation against Yunex GmbH, alleging that Yunex had installed infringing optics from Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels in Mönchengladbach. The Local Chamber Munich held that the application had become moot due to Yunex's procedural behavior and dismissed it, while reserving the cost decision for the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy & Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd & Others
Nokia sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court to prevent Sunmi Group entities from seeking Anti-Suit Injunctions in China or elsewhere that would impede Nokia's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court granted the interim measures, prohibiting the Sunmi respondents from filing or pursuing ASI proceedings, with penalties of up to €250,000 per day for violations, and ordered service at the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf without security.
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.