IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 189 · 5,670 total
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.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN), a French company specializing in plastic connection and drainage systems, sued four entities of the First group for infringement of European patent EP3272938 concerning its Connecto®invisible channel grid. RPN alleged that the defendants' Ghost channel grid covers and Pratiko channel gutters infringed claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the patent, both literally and by equivalence. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of RPN's infringement claims, finding that the alleged equivalent function did not arise from the patent's characteristics and was not easily deducible by a person skilled in the art, and ordered RPN to bear all costs and pay a provisional sum of 70,000 euros to the defendants.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This case concerns an action for infringement of 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. When service of process via the Hague Service Convention to China remained unconfirmed for over 3.5 months, the claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the application, ordering that service could be effected by a German bailiff at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf upon the most senior staff member of the defendants present at their exhibition stand.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics files an IPR petition challenging Massively Broadband’s ’700 Patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Daley, Aaron and Scherzer. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
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.
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
The Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court consolidated a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation brought by bioMérieux group companies against European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 (owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC), concerning modular point-of-care devices. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 3, finding that the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 2 contained added subject-matter. Costs were apportioned equitably, with bioMérieux ordered to pay two-thirds of Labrador's legal costs (EUR 400,000), and Labrador's request for confidentiality of the agreed costs amount was dismissed.
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 Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
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.
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.