IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 140 · 4,175 total
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s patent 8,280,987 before the Board had instituted the trial. The motion argues the proceeding is still in a preliminary stage and seeks a speedy, cost‑effective termination.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of Samsung's IPR against Headwater's patent, citing the parallel proceeding's trial date as a decisive discretionary factor.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research settled its patent claims against Apple, licensing the patents and withdrawing related allegations, while the broader litigation against Amazon continues.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over CDN‑related prior art (Dilley, Russell) combined with Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑construction arguments for key terms.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against HBCU Messaging US LP, finding that Apple failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the registration of the mark 'VNYABAIE' in Class 3, which was registered in the name of Anupam Srivastava. The Delhi High Court issued notices to all parties and directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, setting a future date for hearing.
M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P. v.M/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v.Inkmango Inc. & Anr.
Juggernaut Books initiated contempt proceedings against Inkmango Inc. alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement decree regarding the publication of mandated disclaimers. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling its obligations, the respondents failed to publish the required notices on their digital platforms. While the court acknowledged the dispute over compliance, it did not immediately punish the respondent, instead directing them to file a compliance affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing.
Royal Coffee Works v.The Registrar Of Trademarks; Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited
Royal Coffee Works challenged the delay in processing its trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was opposed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited regarding the use of 'tea' in the product description. The Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner's grievance concerning procedural delays. The court directed the Registrar to expedite the matter and pass appropriate orders on both the original trademark application and the opposition within a three-month timeframe.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC_CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti in merito alla richiesta di garanzia per le spese ai sensi della regola 158 del regolamento di procedura emessa il 30 ottobre 2025 NOTE: • Se necessari
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning European Patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that the Unified Patent Court lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust's main claim sought a declaration that its licence offer was FRAND and, alternatively, a determination of FRAND terms by the court, which Vivo contended falls outside the UPC's competence. Vivo additionally contested the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Rule 19.1(b) RoP. Sun Patent Trust countered that the UPC has jurisdiction over FRAND aspects and that the Paris Local Division is competent to hear the case, requesting dismissal of the preliminary objection.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Ashique Exports, setting aside an adverse abandonment order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner argued that they were never properly served with the Notice of Opposition regarding their 'Vi-Wash' trademark application. The court found that since the official records lacked reference to the petitioner's registered email ID, the statutory requirement for deemed service under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act was not met. Consequently, the case has been restored for a fresh hearing after proper notice is issued.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Radhey Radhey Industries & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the defendants sought to vacate an existing injunction. The plaintiff argued that a pending rectification petition was irrelevant to the current litigation. The court directed the plaintiff to submit the entire record of the rectification petition within two weeks, ensuring both parties have access to all relevant information as the case proceeds.
M/S Bhagwati Enterprises v.Rajesh Kumar Aggrawal
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several procedural applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions for filing copies and instituting pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiff time to amend the plaint after finding that the initial claims regarding manufacturing capacity were unsubstantiated by the records.
Herbalife International Inc. v.Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing interim injunction against Herbalife's trademarks to a newly impleaded defendant (Mr. Narayan Lal Kumawat) after relying on a local commissioner's report indicating counterfeit activity. The court also issued strict directives, requiring all involved parties to discontinue selling infringing goods on Flipkart and disclose detailed transaction information related to the alleged trademark infringement.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd., in its suit against M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr. The court granted exemptions for pre-institution mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and stock of the Defendant, thereby initiating immediate protective measures against alleged trademark infringement.
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH, Skechers S.a.r.l, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers EDC SPRL, Skechers USA Italia Srl, Skechers USA France SAS v.FAST IP, LLC
FAST IP LLC brought an infringement action against multiple Skechers group entities based on European patent EP4003084 concerning rapid-entry footwear. The Defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of the proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Claimant opposed the application. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing the application to change the language of the proceedings.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sons against Sohel Iliyasbhai Dantroliya. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods (VITA GLUCO+) bearing deceptively similar packaging to TATA GLUCO+. The order also provided procedural relief to the plaintiffs regarding extensions of time, exemption from pre-institution mediation, and permission to file additional documents.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Impresario Entertainment, who holds a registered trademark for 'SOCIAL' used across various hospitality services. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, noting the defendant's prior withdrawal of its own application due to concerns over deceptive similarity. This interim order immediately restrains the defendant from using marks similar to 'SOCIAL', including variations like 'SOCIAL KITCHEN'.
Jsw Mg Motor India Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by JSW MG Motor India Private Limited challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order that treated their application as abandoned due to non-appearance. The Appellant argued that their newly engaged counsel made reasonable attempts to join the virtual hearing but was unable to do so because the VC link was sent to the previous counsel. The Court prima facie agreed with the Appellant, finding that the inability to attend was not attributable to the new counsel. Consequently, notice was issued to the Respondents, and the matter was listed for further consideration.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation a. o.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551, owned by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing procedural matters including the value of the case, reimbursement of legal costs, parallel proceedings status, the claimant's operational request regarding the counterclaim for revocation, and the admissibility of certain evidence and claim amendments. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement as exhibits and granted leave to amend the patent claims under Rule 263 RoP.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
IPM petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cisco’s ’708 video‑conferencing patent, arguing all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art sliders and layout controls.
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.