IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 26 of 140 · 4,175 total
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'Infrared (IR) Based Quantitation of Biomolecules.' The refusal was based on the grounds that the claimed method constituted an unpatentable diagnostic process under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of this exclusion and that the amendments made were permissible refinements.
Natera Inc And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for 'Methods for Lung Cancer Detection'. The refusal was based on the grounds that the methods were not patentable under Section 3(i) as they related to diagnosis/treatment, and certain claims violated Section 59. The High Court upheld the refusal.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant two patent applications related to methylation-based enrichment of fetal nucleic acid for non-invasive prenatal diagnoses. The core issue was whether this diagnostic process, conducted in a laboratory setting, fell under the exclusion of methods for diagnosis under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The dispute involved Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha alleging infringement of its patent (IN 294424) concerning Alectinib against Anthem Biosciences Limited. The parties subsequently agreed to amicably resolve the matter.
Caterpillar Inc v.Gold Filter And Co And Another
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gold Filter And Co for infringing several of its Patents related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court passed an order granting various procedural exemptions sought by the Plaintiff, including exemption from pre-institution Mediation and advance service, and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the alleged infringing parts.
Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. v.Ashok Kumar(S)/John Does & Ors.
In a significant commercial dispute concerning the HARPIC brand, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiffs (Reckitt And Colman). The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court also permitted an ex parte ad interim injunction by appointing Local Commissioners to conduct inspections of the alleged infringing products, reinforcing the strength of the brand's trademark and trade dress protection.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
1 di 3 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 226/2025 ordinanza ex rule 360 RoP depositata il 7.10.2025 ATTORE Hypertherm Inc. CONVENUTO Tec.Mo. s.r.l. ORGANO DECIDENTE Su indicazione del judge-rapporteur (v. rule 363 RoP), la presente ordinanza è adottata dal Panel nella segu
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
The Local Division Brussels combined an infringement action brought by CRETES NV against HYLER BV with a validity counterclaim brought by HYLER BV against CRETES NV concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Following a Court-ordered mediation process under Rule 105(5) RoP, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which they notified to the Registry on 29 August 2025. On 7 October 2025, the Court issued a definitive decision confirming the settlement under Rule 365(1) RoP, keeping its contents confidential under Rule 365.2 RoP, and addressing the reimbursement of court fees under Rules 370(9)(c) and 370(9)(e) RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review to overturn the institution of Samsung’s Wi‑Fi patent, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient explanation of differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01245. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the public docket.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,250,758. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,803,836. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the three inter partes review proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of SitePro’s ‘184 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling equipment, arguing abstract‑idea ineligibility, obviousness over four prior references, and lack of written‑description support.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Amazon Technologies Inc.
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a Special Leave Petition filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. against Amazon Technologies Inc., concerning the stay of an execution decree related to trademark infringement. The core issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court was justified in granting a stay on the money decree without insisting on the deposit of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the stay.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns appeals by Roku against the rejection of its objections (Einsprüche) by the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the grounds for objection under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure are exhaustive, whether the UPC's jurisdictional framework is compatible with EU law, whether the Administrative Committee could replace London with Milan as a Central Division location, and how court fees apply to multiple appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of Roku's objections, finding them inadmissible or unfounded.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
United Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 57 claims of Actelion’s ’847 patent covering macitentan‑PDE5 inhibitor combinations for pulmonary hypertension. The petition alleges anticipation by Bolli and obviousness over Bolli‑Keyser and Hoeper‑Morice references, arguing that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
Belden, PPC Broadband, and Opterna have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of CommScope’s ’417 fiber‑optic enclosure patent, asserting obviousness over Hogan, Walters, and Abel. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01119 involving Belden Inc. et al. and CommScope Technologies LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd filed an application under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims and remand Patent Application No. 1982/DEL/2013 back to the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court issued notice and directed the filing of a reply within four weeks.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280, which covers Benzamide Derivatives. The court registered the plaint as a suit and issued directions regarding the appointment and scope of the Local Commissioner to investigate the matter.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Tapas Chatterjee appealed a decision where the Assistant Controller rejected his patent application for 'Recovery of Potassium Sulphate...'. The rejection was based on pre-grant opposition filed by CSIR, citing lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)). The High Court remanded the matter back to the CGPDTM for fresh consideration, restricting it only to the objection raised by CSIR regarding inventive step.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Shivam Udhyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, declaring its trademark 'WIPRO' as a well-known mark. The judgment recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, citing massive sales turnover (over INR 60,775 crores) and substantial promotional expenditure over several decades. This declaration is crucial for protecting the brand against unauthorized use by third parties.
M/S.Texmo Industries v.Mukesh Lamba
The Madras High Court addressed a complex intellectual property dispute involving M/S.Texmo Industries against Mukesh Lamba regarding the use of similar marks for pump goods. The suit claimed infringement under Trademark Act provisions, alongside copyright violations related to website design and content. Ultimately, the court decreed the case based on a compromise memorandum entered into by both parties, resolving the multi-faceted dispute.
Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F. v.M/S Udhog Mandir
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision regarding the territorial jurisdiction for a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to return/reject the plaint, arguing that the cause of action did not arise in Bikaner. However, the High Court ruled that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides a special rule allowing an infringement suit to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, even if the cause of action is elsewhere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
M/s. Zonex Industries v.Kunal Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision to stay an infringement lawsuit concerning the 'ZONEX' trademark. The petitioner, M/s. Zonex Industries, challenged the stay, arguing that their trademark was validly registered. However, the court found that since the respondent had initiated rectification proceedings challenging the validity of the registration before the competent forum, the suit for infringement must be stayed under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This ruling reinforces the legal mechanism allowing parties to pause litigation while trademark validity is being determined.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00875, keeping the challenge against Cellular South’s patent alive.
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.