IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 23 of 140 · 4,175 total
Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.
Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Shashikant Sharma & Anr.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' systems.
Darzi India Llp v.Kafil Ahmed
This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr., addressing claims of trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'YATRI' brand used for electric vehicles. The court recognized the Plaintiff's status as a prior user and owner, issuing a broad restraint order preventing Defendants from using deceptively similar marks online or offline. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the market reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's established e-vehicle brand.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Unique International Ev Private Limited v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Unique International EV Private Limited against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric vehicles under the 'PANTHER' brand, successfully argued that the Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by using confusingly similar marks for identical goods (e-rickshaws). This interim relief prevents the Defendants from continuing their alleged infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. et. al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for invalidity regarding European Patent EP 3 567 731. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff Huawei Technologies requested permission to withdraw the infringement action against both defendants with the consent of Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 requested permission to withdraw its counterclaim for invalidity with the plaintiff's consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim granted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid by each party, while declining to issue a cost decision since neither party filed cost applications.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
All costs relating to the enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP. The wording of Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision. The
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. EP 2 755 901 B1, brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The dispute relates to the German, French, and Dutch portions of the European patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued headnotes addressing the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, the standard for inventive step regarding material selection, and issues of equivalence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Rajesh Pal Sharma v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Rajesh Pal Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which rejected his Indian Patent Application No. 201811004587. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies within specified timelines.
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Jubilant Generics Ltd.
This appeal before the Allahabad High Court addressed challenges to a Commercial Court's injunction order. The plaintiff, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, successfully argued that its comprehensive Product Dossiers—containing sensitive technical data for generic drugs like Losartan and Amlodipine—qualify as protected literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that the defendants misappropriated these confidential dossiers by transferring them from a Canadian subsidiary to their Indian affiliate, leading to unauthorized manufacturing and use in India. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the injunction.
Saksham Impex Private Limited v.Amit Patel
Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. challenged an arbitral award that rejected its claims against former employee Amit Patel, alleging breach of confidentiality and trade secrets related to the 'Monin' brand. The petitioner argued the arbitrator erred on grounds of perversity and patent illegality. However, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no ground to set it aside.
Smt. B.K. Annapurnamma, Sri B.N.K. Sarathi, Smt. B.S. Nagarathna, and Sri B.S. Sapthagiri (Partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works) v.M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works
The plaintiffs, partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works for infringing their registered design (No. 203040) of a display box. The court found that the copyright subsisting in the design had expired in 2016, rendering the cause of action infructuous.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.John Doe And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against defendants for alleged trademark infringement and disparagement of its iconic 'TAJ' brand. Citing the TAJ trademark as a well-known mark, the court restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating any content that infringes upon the brand. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 was specifically directed to immediately take down an impugned video uploaded on its Instagram channel.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. and Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. following an amicable settlement. The defendants agreed to permanently cease all use, promotion, and sale of products bearing the mark 'AGROCONTIN.' Furthermore, they acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights in 'NITROCONTIN' and committed not to adopt any deceptively similar marks incorporating the suffix 'CONTIN,' effectively resolving the dispute through a binding decree.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against an order relating to penalty payments under the Rules of Procedure. The judgment sets out headnotes explaining the framework for penalty orders under Rule 354.3 RoP, including when penalty orders may be issued, how penalty amounts should be determined, what specifications the order must contain, and the respective responsibilities of claimants and defendants regarding suggested amounts and time periods for compliance.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co.,Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought relief against defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. Upon the defendants' motion and after hearing the plaintiff, the court cancelled the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, because one of the defendants' lead attorneys was personally unable to attend and substitution was not feasible given the short notice and case complexity. The court indicated its intention to schedule a new hearing for February 4, 2026, giving the parties until October 21, 2025 to submit comments.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple seeks dismissal as a co‑petitioner in an IPR over Headwater Research’s location‑service patent after the related Texas lawsuit was thrown out. The motion relies on procedural rules and lack of opposition from the patent owner.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating 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.