IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 140 · 4,175 total
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. , Meril GmbH , Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by the Meril entities against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. 4 151 181 B1 ('EP 181'), alongside a counterclaim for infringement brought by Edwards against the Meril entities. The dispute encompasses both the validity of EP 181, challenged by Meril, and alleged infringement of EP 181, asserted by Edwards. The Court of First Instance issued its decision on 20 October 2025, establishing legal principles on inventive step assessment, the holistic approach to non-obviousness, the definition of a realistic starting point, and the discretionary nature of injunctive remedies.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.
ONWARD Medical N.V v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, directed to a system for neuromodulation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the legal principle that auxiliary requests seeking interim measures based on alternative claim formulations deviating from the granted patent version are generally inadmissible in provisional proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ. The court held that a patent proprietor's request to amend the claim formulation indicates that the patent as granted is likely invalid, undermining the court's ability to assess the validity required for granting interim relief.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.
This is a provisional measures order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division in The Hague, concerning European patent EP4344633. Applicant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with its FreeStyle Libre product, sought provisional measures against Defendants Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in connection with their GlucoMen iCan CGM system. The dispute centers on an alleged infringement of Abbott's unitary patent relating to CGM technology, with Sinocare manufacturing the device and Menarini holding exclusive distribution rights in over 20 European countries.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited
Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.
Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.
Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Kbm Foods Private Limited v.Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Wazahat Choudhary
In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Vivanta Stays & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against Vivanta Stays & Ors. The court recognized 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark and immediately restrained the defendants from using similar marks, such as VIVANTA STAYS/VIVANTA REALTY, both online and offline. Furthermore, the order mandated the immediate takedown of infringing websites and domain names, providing swift protection to the plaintiff's brand reputation.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Dilipkumar Narandas Sheth Trading As M/s. Arihant Enterprise
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications. The court allowed the defendant to file vernacular and dim documents while simultaneously directing both parties to engage in an amicable resolution. Crucially, the court acknowledged evidence presented by the defendant regarding the historical use of a specific logo as a watermark on invoices dating back to 1993, allowing the plaintiff to inspect these original documents. The judgment emphasizes the possibility of settlement before further litigation proceeds.
Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v.Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.
Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.1) Insulet Corporation; 2) EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - UPC_CFI_941/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rule 262.1 b) RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/10/2025 APPLICANT Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP - Breite Str. 29, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany Represent
Brita SE v.1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.
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.