IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 189 · 5,670 total
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, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This is a preliminary order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a Preliminary Objection arguing that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over the case because Sun Patent Trust requested a ruling on a FRAND issue as a main claim rather than as a defence. The court denied Vivo's request to postpone the filing of its Statement of Defence, finding no exceptional circumstances to derogate from procedural efficiency.
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.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,543,710, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Roskind, Gleichauf, and Short prior art and lack proper priority support.
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.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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.
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.
Halozyme, Inc. v.Alteogen Inc.
Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering situational‑network advertising. The PTAB found all ten challenged claims (12‑21) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing obviousness over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision finalizes the institution and cancellation of the claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Headwater’s 9,615,192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references, arguing that the claimed features are obvious. No Board decision has been issued yet.
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.
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.