IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 24 of 140 · 4,175 total
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple, Amazon.com Services and AWS have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’571 patent covering secure device provisioning over wireless networks. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems from Chia, Cunningham and others.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Yogesh Chaurasia
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bisleri International Private Limited against Yogesh Chaurasia. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was passing off their packaged drinking water as being associated with the plaintiff. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant's mark 'BRISLEI,' labels (OXY FINE and BILIFE), bottle design/shape, and even the green cap were substantially similar to Bisleri's distinctive trade dress. This ruling provides immediate protection to Bisleri while the main suit proceeds.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v.La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Crocodile International Pte. Ltd against La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. The court condoned the plaintiff's delay in filing its replication and granted an extension for filing a rejoinder, provided the plaintiff deposits costs. Furthermore, the court set out a clear roadmap for the case management, directing both parties to file documents, affidavits of admission/denial, and joint document schedules before proceeding to trial.
Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Flora Beverages India Pvt Ltd
In a commercial IP suit concerning energy beverages, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's request to consolidate multiple claims. The court granted leave for Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to combine its cause of action for passing off with those related to trademark and copyright infringement. This procedural step allows the parties to address all facets of their intellectual property dispute within a single legal framework, paving the way for further substantive hearings.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o. a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 13/10/2025 concerning the runtime and Preliminary Objection APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB held that WHOOP proved 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims were left intact.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB, on remand, affirmed that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and upheld the claim construction of “identify an object.”
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenges Maxell’s 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video transmitter that manages EDID information. The petitioner’s expert argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Funabiki, Guo, Fastert, and the E‑DDC Standard. No evidence of secondary considerations is presented.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.As Print Pack Global Private Limited
The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.
M/S. Aquapump Industries & Anr. v.Ravi Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification regarding a specific trademark registration. Following submissions from both parties, the court directed the cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6100995 for the mark in Class 11. This order mandates the trademark registry to rectify its records accordingly within four weeks, effectively clearing the title and resolving the dispute between M/S. Aquapump Industries and Ravi Yadav.
Ardo Medical Ag v.Ms Sdb International And Anr.
Ardo Medical Ag successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court to rectify the Trade Marks Register, seeking cancellation of a conflicting trademark registered by Ms Sdb International. The court found that Respondent No. 1 engaged in bad faith and trade mark squatting by registering an identical mark despite Ardo's prior use and global registrations. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the infringing trademark from the register.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Sanjay Tada
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully concluded its intellectual property dispute against Mr. Sanjay Tada through an amicable settlement before the Delhi High Court. The court decreed the suit based on the parties' undertaking, which required the defendant to acknowledge all of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright rights. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using infringing marks like '303', destroy all related materials, and change packaging for agricultural seeds.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,245,997 and filed a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and cites Board precedent for terminating settled proceedings.
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.