IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 189 · 5,670 total
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
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.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
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.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 B2 “Video to Data” patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art references Fontana, Lau, and Arakawa. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google's request to institute IPR against Cellular South's patent (11,126,853), finding the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that no merits decision has been made. The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have reached a settlement covering the ’252 patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR against QPRIVACY’s privacy‑technology patent, arguing the Director ignored a Sotera stipulation that eliminates duplicate litigation.
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.