IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 35 of 140 · 4,175 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
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 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patents (Suit Patents) through the sale and distribution of the Honor 200 series smartphones. The court found a prima facie case of infringement, considering test analyses and tear down reports.
3Sk Innovations Private Ltd v.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd Esfbl
The parties appeared before the Delhi High Court for case management proceedings. The court framed several issues concerning territorial jurisdiction, patent infringement, ownership rights, and the validity/revocation of two specific patents (IN'627 and IN'730). Furthermore, the Confidentiality Club was constituted to manage the exchange of sealed data between the parties.
Exotic Mile v.Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.
Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural directions in the trademark opposition case filed by Ms. Drools Pet Food Private Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. Despite ongoing mediation efforts, the court set a timeline for the respondents to file their replies within six weeks, followed by rejoinders. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and completion of pleadings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the trademark dispute between Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking records from the Trademark Registry, noting that the record had been received by the parties. Furthermore, the court set a schedule for both sides to file written submissions on the main case before listing it again in January 2026.
Hardwyn India Limited And Anr v.Rajenndra Engitech Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Hardwyn India Limited and Rajenndra Engitech LLP, focusing on the use of the mark 'HARDVIN' which was deemed deceptively similar to 'HARDWYN'. The court accepted a comprehensive undertaking from the defendant, requiring them to cease using the impugned mark and initiate its withdrawal from the Trademark Registry. Consequently, an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, recognizing the mutual interest in resolution, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the petition filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., directing the rectification of Trademark Registration No. 5849026 held by Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that the goods and service details in Class 11 be amended to specifically reflect 'Bathroom and Sanitary fittings and accessories,' thereby limiting the scope of the trademark registration. This decision allows the petitioner to achieve a more precise definition of the registered goods, aligning with prior agreements.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Respondent
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
UPC Decision UPC-000366 v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. against several defendants, including members of the BEGA group of companies, alleging infringement of European Patent EP3522755B1. The patent relates to a cabinet designed to house a washing machine or washer-dryer at waist level for ergonomic use. The application against the first defendant, Wasombouw B.V., was withdrawn shortly after filing, while the proceedings continued against the remaining defendants. The Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance held an oral hearing on 14 August 2025 and issued its order on 11 September 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Respondent
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This provisional order concerns a confidentiality application filed by the defendants (MediaTek) in connection with their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The defendants sought protection for technical information regarding the functioning of certain chips, particularly the implementation of an encoding algorithm, and requested that access be limited to a maximum of three named persons from the plaintiff's legal department. Huawei opposed the request, arguing the information was not protectable as it consisted merely of negative facts, and alternatively requested access for nine, six, or three named persons.
Washtower v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH et al
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. (Applicants), proprietors of European Patent EP3522755B1 relating to cabinets for housing washing machines at waist level, sought provisional measures against several defendants from the BEGA furniture group and a related partner company. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent by the defendants' manufacture and sale of competing washing machine cabinets. The Local Division The Hague issued an order on provisional measures following an oral hearing held on 14 August 2025, after the Applicants filed their application on 28 May 2025 and the parties exchanged submissions including objections, replies, and rejoinders.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201717045317), titled 'Material comprising a stack of thin layers', by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the claimed invention lacked technical advancement over prior art.
K Arjun Singh And Others v.Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside an adverse interim injunction that had been granted against the appellants' registered trademarks. The court found the initial finding of infringement to be ex facie impermissible and noted a lack of categorical finding regarding passing off goodwill. Consequently, both parties agreed to have the Commercial Court decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC without being influenced by the previous impugned order.
Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S Safed Parindey Event Management Llp & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition seeking intervention in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, claiming rights over various trademarks, sought the court's direction to expedite the decision on an injunction application filed before the Commercial Court. While acknowledging the urgency, the High Court directed the lower court to proceed with deciding the interim injunction on the next scheduled date (September 16, 2025). Crucially, the court stipulated that no adjournment would be granted to the defendants, ensuring a swift resolution of the urgent matter.
M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd, interim relief in its suit against Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders. The court recognized the strength of the 'BLUE HEAVEN' brand, noting its long history since 1972 and extensive portfolio of registered trademarks and copyrights across various cosmetic product lines. Crucially, the court directed the defendants to immediately take down listings of impugned products on major e-commerce platforms like Meesho and Amazon, affirming the plaintiff's rights against online infringement.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
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.