IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 140 · 4,175 total
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited against Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing the alleged infringement of the 'ZECUF' trademark. The court recognized the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's pharmaceutical brand, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with verifying stock and seizing infringing products, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to protecting registered trademarks in the fast-moving pharma sector.
Purvish Indrakant Shah & Ors. v.Shyamal Jagdishchandra Sheth
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal filed by the original defendants against a trial court's temporary injunction favoring the plaintiff. The core dispute revolved around the ownership rights of the logo 'Taste of Vadodara,' which was governed by two Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs). The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, leading it to set aside the injunction and reject the application.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application for an inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the latter's trade fair stand in Hannover. The application was made in preparation for a main infringement action. The patent had been granted on April 26, 2017, without any opposition being filed, and was in force in multiple European countries. The respondent, the parent company of the GPAINNOVA Group, had also filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent in a related main proceeding (UPC_CFI_511/2025).
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of the Regents of the University of California’s 2010 patent on parallel distributed programming, asserting anticipation by the 1998 Fukuda publication.
Fox And Mandal And Anr v.Somabrata Mandal And Ors
This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.
Saptarishi Herbals Llp v.Asif Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saptarishi Herbals Llp against Asif Enterprises & Anr. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting the plaintiff exemptions regarding e-filing advertisements and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff was granted leave to administer interrogatories upon the defendants, setting a clear path for the commencement of substantive litigation.
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent covering clot‑removal systems. Imperative Care successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple claims, prompting full‑scale review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and the applicability of Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review on all fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent, finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments against the hemostasis valve features sufficiently plausible.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, seeking to store it separately from the patent file and limit access.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have entered a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,829,518, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01557) before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claims were instituted or decided.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file for Champion's dual‑fuel generator patent.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,840,970 covering a dual‑fuel generator. The parties filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S. Safed Parindey Event Management LLP and Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, upholding the Commercial Court's rejection of her request for an interim injunction. The court found that Ms. Pancholi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her proprietary rights over the trademarks "Safedishq" and "SafedParindey." Crucially, the judgment highlighted that while she was associated with 'the Sheri Affair,' ownership lay with another entity, Loop Events & Entertainment, making her claim of prior usage unsubstantiated at this stage. The ruling emphasizes that mere association is insufficient to secure injunctive relief without concrete proof of proprietary rights.
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.