IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 162 of 189 · 5,670 total
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems, Inc. and its German subsidiary Cisco Systems GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which relates to fast packet processing in wireless networks. Cisco filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, leaving the patent in its granted form, and ordered the plaintiff to bear 40% and the defendants 60% of the costs.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.
Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
Aylo Premium Ltd brought a revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) and requested that DISH Technologies L.L.C. provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 400,000 under R. 158 RoP, citing insolvency risks within the DISH/EchoStar group. The Court rejected the request, finding that Aylo had not met its burden of proof given the lifting of the going concern qualification, the group's receipt of over USD 8 billion in new funding, and EchoStar's irrevocable declaration to reimburse Aylo's legal costs up to EUR 400,000.
Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The order addresses contested legal points regarding the interpretation of patent claims, the evidential value of a TESCAN ANALYTICS report, and the value of the action, while organizing the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for March 13, 2025. The defendant Laser Components SAS did not attend the conference and was informed that a default decision would be rendered regarding it.
Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition against Edge Networking’s ’095 patent covering distributed software‑defined networking. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Vasell and related OSGi literature and opposes discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking’s distributed software‑defined networking patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's Inter Partes Review against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence showing how prior art teaches or suggests the required 'sandboxing operating system.'
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation's attempt to invalidate Edge Networking Systems' patent (10893095) regarding Software Defined Networks was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Microsoft failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically concerning 'sandboxing operating system' principles.
Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited v.Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a rectification application filed by Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited against Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. The court found that the mark registered by the respondent was deceptively similar to the applicant's long-standing trademark 'Shrinath'. Crucially, the applicant successfully demonstrated prior use of the mark since 1978, establishing significant goodwill and reputation in the travel industry. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the infringing registration, reinforcing the importance of proving continuous prior usage rights.
Cadbury Uk Limited v.ITC Limited
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks be formally included in the proceedings. This procedural step ensures all relevant parties are involved in the ongoing litigation between Cadbury UK Limited and ITC Limited. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner liberty to carry out necessary informal amendments to their case filings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 5th, 2025.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order from the Central Division (Milan section) of the Unified Patent Court addressed EOFLOW's application for cost reimbursement following the rejection of Insulet's request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327. The Court dismissed EOFLOW's cost application without examining the substance, holding that when a preliminary injunction is followed by proceedings on the merits, cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the overall merits proceedings rather than at the PI stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)
This procedural order concerns EOFLOW's application for reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against INSULET's request for a provisional injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327, which the Court had rejected on 22 November 2024. Since the PI proceedings were followed by separate revocation and infringement proceedings on the merits, the Court held that cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the merits proceedings as a whole, rather than parceled out by stage. EOFLOW's application for costs was therefore dismissed without examination of the substance.
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.