IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 140 · 4,175 total
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to invalidate Intellectual Ventures I LLC's patent covering virtual community networks and IP routing. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner could not persuasively demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Caronni-I and RFC-1383.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using graphical representations.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using metadata management systems.
LG Electronics Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
LG Electronics Inc filed a suit against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors seeking restraining orders for infringing its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 4G and 5G cellular standards. The court passed several interim orders allowing the plaintiff various applications, including filing confidential documents and adding claims for infringement of additional patents.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Rajan Adlakha v.Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Rajan Adlakha filed a writ petition seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks regarding a pending opposition. The petitioner argued that since the opponent failed to file evidence by the statutory deadline, the opposition was deemed abandoned under Trademark Rules, but the Registrar had not formally recorded this status. The Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 (Registrar) to treat the petition as a formal representation and pass appropriate orders recording the abandonment within four weeks.
M/S Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Romil Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a defendant's application to take certain affidavits on record in a trademark infringement suit. The court ultimately allowed the application, accepting the additional documents despite procedural delays. This decision emphasizes judicial flexibility and the importance of considering the context of litigation history when determining admissibility of evidence.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al
1 UPC_CFI_666/2024 UPC_CFI_ 199/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 3/11/2025 concerning: order after interim conference (R. 105.5) Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 07/11/2024 The Walt Disne
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and urges the Board to institute review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Sri. Manjappa Chatrad v.3M India Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 416744 ('Road Safety Device') held by Respondent No. 2 (3M Innovative Properties Company). The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that patent revocation is a civil remedy falling under the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and should be filed as a Civil Petition, not a Writ Petition.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses complex procedural issues arising from concurrent litigation between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and The Controller of Patents. Specifically, the court examined whether a revocation petition remains maintainable even if the patentee has already raised an invalidity defence in an infringement suit. Furthermore, the bench deliberated on the highly arguable question of whether a patent can be revoked after its term has expired by efflux of time. The court decided to list the matter for further hearing and stayed the impugned order.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Post-Grant Opposition filed by Mylan against Patent No. IN 315447 held by Respondent No. 1. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Silvermaple Healthcare Services Private Limited v.Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Silvermaple Healthcare Services against Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP and others regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to hair restoration services. The court found that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants continued using the protected marks and copyrighted materials, leading to a favorable order for the Plaintiff.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY' was a clear case of dishonest imitation and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given the Plaintiff's established reputation and significant market presence, the injunction aims to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Martuj Ali & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited against Martuj Ali & Anr. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the well-known status and extensive use of the 'TATA' mark by the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from using the impugned mark 'TATA BIRI' or any deceptively similar variations, preventing consumer confusion regarding their association with the Tata Group.
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.