IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 164 of 189 · 5,670 total
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon's 2022 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering back‑contact cell design and impurity gettering.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent covering buttonless touchscreen phones, asserting obviousness over Pensjo and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Keyless Licensing’s ’602 patent covering edge‑gesture UI elements, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Tseng and Jeong.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Micron’s 3D NAND patent (U.S. 8,803,214) on anticipation and obviousness grounds, citing Kang, Fukuzumi and Ahn references. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks institution of review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
Parle Elizabeth Tools Private Limited v.Pacific Tools Private Limited
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation of patent number 420765, which was granted in favour of respondent no.1. The court allowed an application for exemption from filing copies and listed the main petition for further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Shabina Kundial & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited successfully petitioned for the rectification and removal of a deceptively similar trade mark registered by Shabina Kundial & Anr. The petitioner, which operates under the renowned FACES brand in beauty and wellness, demonstrated extensive prior use, goodwill, and reputation associated with its marks. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established FACES marks and was adopted dishonestly to ride over the petitioner's reputation, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v.Askhok Kumar & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order concerning trademark infringement, the court granted an exemption from advanced service to allow the plaintiffs (Panasonic) to seek urgent interim relief. The core decision was the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises. This action aims to confiscate counterfeit packaging materials bearing the 'ANCHOR' trademark, thereby protecting Panasonic's goodwill and preventing further infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of the ’626 LED patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Shimadzu Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Shimadzu Corporation appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647043103), which concerned a surrogate biomarker for evaluating amyloid beta peptide accumulation. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it related to diagnostic methods. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, finding that the appellants were prejudiced by not having access to a key judgment before the initial hearing.
The Trustees Of Columbia University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its amended patent claims (1-19) for 'METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF AMYLOID DEPOSITION DISEASES' under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the amendments were supported by the complete specification, citing relevant case law. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.
Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd v.P.Sundaram
The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'WAHEED.' The court held that because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory notice regarding the impending expiry of the registration, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal despite the lapse of time. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative failure by the Registry can override strict procedural deadlines.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril GmbH v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) challenging the admissibility of an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber had jurisdiction because, at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, the prior interim measures application between the same parties regarding the same patent was already pending before the Court of Appeal, not before another chamber of the Court of First Instance. The court further established that the action was deemed served on December 2, 2024.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is himself a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether he can represent a company where he serves as Chair of the Board. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they are themselves parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorised representatives.
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.