IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 31 of 140 · 4,175 total
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’831 patent, which covers energy‑efficient CNN processing. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01567 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The notice also detailed multiple denials across various proceedings.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Aet Laboratories Private Limited & Anr
The suit was filed by Helsinn Healthcare Sa seeking permanent injunction against Aet Laboratories Private Limited and others for infringing its patent IN 426553, which covers compositions for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The court ultimately vacated the existing ad interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction or a prima facie case.
Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd
The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.
Xx v.Yy
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (Xx) against the Defendants (Yy) concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'KAMA GEMS' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to a restraint on selling infringing products and preventing disparagement. Additionally, the court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Honasa Consumer Limited sought an interim injunction against Cloud Wellness Private Limited, alleging infringement of its trade dress and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, noting that the issues of originality, prior use, and distinctiveness of the 'Subject Trade Dress' are complex factual questions requiring a full trial. Given the prolonged market co-existence between both parties, the court found no compelling case for granting an immediate injunction.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited & Anr. v.Mrs Vishali Maggo & Ors.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defamation and disparagement of its trademark 'THRILLOPHILIA' by individuals who posted negative comments online. The Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint, preventing the defendants from uploading any new defamatory content using the Plaintiffs' marks or disparaging language on social media platforms. This order also allowed the Plaintiffs to file additional documents in the ongoing commercial suit.
M/S Gopika Industries v.Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendant's application seeking rectification of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. The core dispute centered on prior user rights, where the Defendant claimed earlier use of 'DAYAL' in cattle feed compared to the Plaintiff's earliest documented use. However, the Court found that the Defendant's claims were not tenable and did not raise a triable issue, upholding the validity of the Plaintiff's registered mark.
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited v.Registrar of Trademarks
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal of its 'Apollo' trademark application in the Gujarat High Court. The initial rejection was based on a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark, but the court accepted an affidavit and No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the owner of the cited mark. Consequently, the court quashed the original rejection order and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application.
Kei Industries Limited v.M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kei Industries Limited against M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, recognizing the urgent need for protection. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with seeking an ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the premises, allowing the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged trademark infringement related to 'KEI' and 'HOMECAB-FR'.
Dhanuka Agritech Limited v.Agrim Wholesale Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Dhanuka Agritech Limited against Agrim Wholesale Private Limited. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff's request for an urgent interim injunction and directed the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and inventory the alleged infringing goods, setting a clear path for immediate evidence gathering in the dispute.
Estuaries Industries Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the trademark application 'BLEND IT'. The court noted that the Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's existing registered mark, 'BLEND IT RIGHT', in Class 32. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the prior registration is taken into account.
IFB Industries Limited v.Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint in the case of IFB Industries Limited vs Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others. The court granted leave under relevant procedural rules, allowing the matter to proceed for scrutiny by the Department.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
UPC_CFI_897/2025 - 25 September 2025 1 of 11 Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_ 897/2025 Ex Parte Order Of the Court of first Instance of the UPC issued on 25 September 2025 regarding: the preservation of evidence APPLICANT DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Topaz street, Park
SCANTRUST v.ADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE
1 Division centrale de Paris UPC_CFI_323/2025 Décision au fond de la division centrale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 25/09/2025 DEMANDEUR SCANTRUST - EPFL Innovation Park PSE-D - CH-1015 - LAUSANNE – CH Représentée par Maî
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung Display have reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,013,088 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity determinations were made.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for several IPR proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges against the patent. This moves these cases forward to the merits phase.
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.