IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 140 · 4,175 total
Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.
Kamdhenu Steels And Alloys Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard a petition challenging an order directing a company to change its name based on alleged resemblance to another entity's brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the application for rectification was filed within the statutory three-year limitation period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. While acknowledging the complexities of IP disputes between related entities, the Court granted a stay on the impugned order pending further arguments, allowing time to resolve the jurisdictional and temporal issues.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
ECOVACS Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a request for extension of deadlines filed by Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff alleges infringement of European Patent EP 3 494 446 against four Ecovacs group entities in China, Germany, France, and the United States. Defendant 2 seeks to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense and any counterclaim for invalidity until November 26, 2025, and the deadline for filing a Preliminary Objection until September 26, 2025, offering in return to facilitate service on the other three defendants to create a uniform deadline regime.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano DECISIONE del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado relativa al brevetto EP EP2145848 Attore in contraffazione e convenuto in nullità Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid – DE Rappresentato dag
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court decision.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
Hitesh Rastogi v.M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several connected trademark infringement matters involving Hitesh Rastogi and M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner had filed these petitions without obtaining prior leave from the Civil Court under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Consequently, the matter was listed for a future date, pending the adjudication of the petitioner's application seeking such leave.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Fraunhofer concerning European patent EP2609590. HMD Global Oy argued that the change was necessary for reasons of fairness, given that the evidence and annexes were predominantly in English, the defendant was based in a non-German-speaking country, and it communicated internally and with its representatives exclusively in English. Fraunhofer opposed the application. The order reflects a weighing of the parties' positions and the relevant circumstances of the case.
ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 08/09/2025 Concernant la prorogation des délais (R. 9.3 RdP) REQUERANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED (Parties à la procédure au principal - Dé
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Respondent
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order treating certain information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours spent on the case and fees agreed upon. The respondent objected, arguing no specific reason for confidentiality was provided and that cost specifications could not be considered trade secrets or attorney-client privileged. The Court granted Microsoft's application, holding that such information qualifies as confidential under Rule 262A RoP and falls within the scope of attorney-client privilege under Rule 287 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
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.