IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 20 of 140 · 4,175 total
Usms Saffron Co. Inc. v.Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement suit filed by Usms Saffron Co. Inc. against Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiff's registered trademarks and unique packaging/trade dress for 'BABY BRAND SAFFRON'. Furthermore, the court set out procedural directions regarding document submission, exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief, and fixed the fee for a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises.
Mohanlal U.Jain Trading As M/s.Master Marketing v.M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Mohanlal U.Jain, setting aside the Trademark Registry's decision to abandon his applications for 'Rallison APPLIANCES.' The core issue was whether the opposition notice served by M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had been properly served on the appellant as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found that despite evidence of communication from the respondent, there was no proof presented by the Registry confirming service upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Registry was directed to grant a fresh opportunity for the matter.
Sg Corporate Mobility Pvt .Ltd. v.Marvel Technoplast Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark opposition matter between Sg Corporate Mobility and Marvel Technoplast. The court granted an exemption request regarding the submission of a certified copy of an NCLT order, allowing the petitioner four weeks to comply. Furthermore, recognizing that Respondent No. 1 had filed notice of opposition to Petitioner's trademark application no. 6792577 but failed to appear, the Court directed formal service and issuance of notices to ensure due process continues in the matter.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
1 di 18 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO UPC CFI n. 127/2025 ORDINANZA SULLA RICHIESTA DI RIESAME DELL’ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLA PROVA, DI ISPEZIONE E DI SEQUESTRO depositata in data 27 ottobre 2025 NOTE 1. Ai fini della conce
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM s.r.l.,Schnell s.p.a.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2726230 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for continuously producing a lattice girder. Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, the patent proprietor, alleged that the Girderflex/Girderflex VSX machinery produced by AWM s.r.l. (a member of the Schnell Group since 2022) infringed its patent. The defendants contested validity through a counterclaim for revocation, raising issues of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Milan Local Division of the Court of First Instance addressed these substantive patent law questions alongside procedural matters concerning evidence preservation and requests to amend the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck, resulting in a complete invalidation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all twenty claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent. The PTAB held the claims obvious over the Kim, Rajan, and Wyman references and declared them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
Pas Agro Foods v.Krbl Limited; Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India; Deputy Registrar of Copyrights
Pas Agro Foods filed a Special Jurisdiction Case seeking the expungement of trademark and copyright registrations granted to Krbl Limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the petition and arguments, directed that notice be served upon all respondents via speed post and email. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity or ownership of the registered IP rights.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Pitambari Products Private Limited
In a dispute over trademark infringement, Capital Foods Private Limited and Pitambari Products Private Limited reached an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court formalized this compromise, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff while allowing the Defendant limited usage rights for specific packaging (PITAMBARI RUCHIYANA SCHEZWAN HOT & SPICY). This resolution allows the parties to move forward without protracted litigation over damages and accounts.
Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application for 'PATHKIND LABS'. The core issue was the existence of cited marks owned by the petitioner's director. By presenting an Assignment Deed and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the court found that the ground for rejection had been sufficiently addressed. Consequently, the application was directed to be accepted and advertised in the Trademark Journal.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This is an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies collectively referred to as 'Xinji.' The Claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after the standard service via The Hague Service Convention to China, initiated on 2 July 2025, failed to produce a certificate of service despite multiple inquiries. The Claimant proposed service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf by a German bailiff upon any staff member of the Defendants at their exhibition stand, with alternative methods also proposed.
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
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.