IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 186 of 189 · 5,670 total
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an action for declaration of non-infringement regarding European Patents EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The plaintiffs (Netgear entities) applied for leave to withdraw the action, to which the defendant (Huawei) had consented in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the plaintiffs.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The Claimant, Valeo Electrification, filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and counterclaims, and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. Both parties jointly applied to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaims. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and declined to refund court fees due to the timing of the withdrawal declarations.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of PayGeo’s ’296 mobile‑payment patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art and requests the Board to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L. applied under Rule 356 of the Rules of Procedure to set aside a decision by default (ORD_51965/2024) issued against it in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. ITCiCo argued that its default in filing the defence to revocation was justified by uncertainty regarding service and the unavailability of its long-standing European Patent Attorney due to illness. The Court rejected the application, holding that the explanation of default under Rule 356(2) RoP must demonstrate that the non-compliance was not attributable to the party's own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to provide €800,000 in security for Aylo's procedural costs. The Court granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG Inc. et al.
ArcelorMittal filed a patent infringement action against multiple XPENG entities and automotive dealers based on EP 3290200 before the Local Division Paris in French. The defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding it admissible and noting that ArcelorMittal did not object on the merits, and ordered translation arrangements for the Statement of Claim and relevant exhibits.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.General Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.
Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v.Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB
The applicants sought reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred in proceedings concerning the respondent's application for access to written pleadings and evidence, which had been rejected. The Court of First Instance dismissed the cost application, holding that a request for access to the register does not constitute litigation in a technical sense and therefore cannot give rise to a decision on the merits, which is a prerequisite for a cost decision under Rule 150 RoP.
MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) - Application to Intervene in Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Others
MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
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.