IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 31 of 189 · 5,670 total
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC sued Texas Instruments and its German subsidiaries for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 746 957, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments implemented certain features of the patent claim, and that the defendants' arguments regarding lack of inventive step based on general common knowledge were also unsuccessful.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions an IPR against Wacom's 9,977,519 active‑pen patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Four grounds are presented covering §§102 and 103. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
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.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between the parties in parallel infringement and validity proceedings, along with the related question of court fee reimbursement. Both parties requested 40% reimbursement of their already paid court fees of €11,000, but the court determined that each party was entitled to only €2,000, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that would have become due if no settlement had been reached.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
Hypertherm Inc. filed a patent infringement assessment action against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. before the Local Division of Milan. After the proceedings were suspended to allow settlement negotiations, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested termination of the proceedings under rule 360 RoP, along with a 60% reimbursement of court fees under rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP. The court granted both requests, ordering the archiving of the case and the reimbursement of 6,600 Euro to Hypertherm Inc.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This case before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV in parallel infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Both parties requested reimbursement of 40% of the already paid court fees (€4,400 each), but the court ordered reimbursement of only €2,000 each, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that had not yet been paid. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its confidentiality, and terminated the proceedings.
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
Court decision.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01246. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
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.
Meta Platform Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks’ U.S. Patent 12,114,177, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over earlier multi‑RAT systems disclosed in Chincholi and Clegg. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology files an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Paneltouch's touch‑panel display patent, asserting obviousness over the Nakamura publication and, for claim 2, over Nakamura combined with Slobodin.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.
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.
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.