IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 140 · 4,175 total
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal
Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This decision concerns European patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. bioMérieux UK Limited filed a revocation action against the patent, while bioMérieux SA and other bioMérieux group entities filed a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action brought by Labrador Diagnostics in the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Central Division Milan addressed issues including amendments to the patent, auxiliary requests, added subject-matter, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, costs, and confidentiality. The court established that when a party submits numerous attacks that are unmanageable under principles of proportionality and speed, only the most promising attacks will be assessed on the merits.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
UPC_CFI_587 22 October 2025 1 UPC_CFI_587/2025 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague issued on 22 October 2025 concerning EP 3 988 471 (R.211 provisional measures) APPLICANT Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Represented by: Christ
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute, which sought to cancel the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30, was resolved amicably between the parties. Both sides entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the petitioner to withdraw the original petition.
Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd against S.Sudhakar and others. The dismissal was not a ruling on the merits but rather an acceptance of a Memorandum of Compromise signed between the parties. This settlement effectively resolved the dispute regarding the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
The Madras High Court dismissed OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025 after the parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., had sought the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam' registered by the respondents in Class 30. Given the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Rep. By Its Managing Director v.Sri Narasus Coffee Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit (C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 203 OF 2024) and an opposition petition (OP(TM) No. 62 of 2024) concerning the mark 'UDHAIYAM' versus 'UDHAYAM'. Both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn, concluding the litigation without a final judgment on the merits.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.
M/S.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by M/S.Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies. The petitioner had sought to cancel the trademark registration 'Udhaiyam' in Class 30, citing grounds for invalidity. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and filed an additional joint memo requesting withdrawal. Consequently, the court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. had filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359359 in Class 29. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, resolving the dispute amicably.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Amycel LLC v.XXX
This is a decision by default issued by the Local Division The Hague in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC, proprietor of EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to 'Brown mushrooms for commercial production,' against a defendant referred to as 'PL.' The defendant failed to file its Statement of Defence in time after a Rule 275 order, resulting in a default judgment. The court confirmed the orders previously given in the related provisional measures proceedings, held that the mushroom strain at issue is not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, found infringement, and granted measures insofar as they were deemed lawful, reasonable, and sufficiently founded.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution in certain IPR proceedings involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00059 involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC. The Board found the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH a.o.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).
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.