IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 189 · 5,670 total
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, which protects a loft/attic staircase (Dachbodentreppe). Dolle A/S, the patent proprietor, sued four FAKRO group companies for infringement regarding the 'GREENSTEP LME Energy Efficient' and 'GREENSTEP LMT Super Thermo' products, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The court largely upheld the infringement claim, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, information, recall, destruction, and damages, with the defendants bearing 90% of the costs of the main action.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
TRANS UNION, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal has filed a petition to cancel Nivagen's 11,813,291 patent covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
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.
NKT Photonics Inc. et al. v.Omni Continuum LLC
NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals has filed a petition to invalidate all 20 claims of Nivagen’s U.S. Patent 11,925,661 covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, citing multiple prior‑art references and lack of written‑description support.
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.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent EP1969839. The court set the value of the dispute at €12 million, granted a confidentiality club, and addressed various procedural matters including late-filed prior art references and parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against multiple entities of the Geely Group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333, which relates to devices and methods for efficient allocation of resources in a mobile communication system. Several defendants filed objections under R. 19 of the Rules of Procedure, challenging both the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court and the local jurisdiction of the Mannheim Local Chamber. The court rejected all objections, finding that the international jurisdiction was established and that the joint action against all group-affiliated defendants was permissible before the Mannheim Local Chamber.
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.
Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.
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.