IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 38 of 140 · 4,175 total
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
Belparts Group N.V. v.Respondent
Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK)
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 relating to a robot localization method, filed an application on September 2, 2025, parallel to a main infringement action, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of Roborock (HK) Limited at the IFA trade fair in Berlin (September 5–9, 2025). The patent had previously been opted out but the opt-out was withdrawn on July 16, 2025. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on September 4, 2025, concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_552/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Applicant) - 333 Lakeside Drive - 94404 - Foster City - US Rep
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 385 739. The plaintiff, UERAN Technology LLC, has brought claims against seven Xiaomi group entities. Defendant 5, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, requested the court to establish a unified deadline regime for all defendants and to extend the deadlines for reply and rejoinder by two weeks each to account for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Respondent
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, Zapp AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants sought an extension from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, while the plaintiff opposed the request and proposed at most a one-week extension. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf applied Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that extensions should be granted only in justified exceptional cases and that parties must file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear they cannot meet the deadline.
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.
Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited
The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.
Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited v.Standard Corporation India Limited
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous rejection of an injunction application in a trademark/passing off dispute between Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the suit's commercial nature and high valuation (around 10 Crores), the court directed that the matter be treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Furthermore, it mandated the Trial Court to expedite the trial process and aim for a final decision by March 31, 2027.
Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 769 722, where Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued several Meril entities for patent infringement, and the Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court of first instance found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent, ordering the Defendants to bear the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The Defendants sought rectification of the costs order, arguing the Court should have expressly ordered Edwards to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim proceedings. The Court dismissed the rectification requests, holding that the chosen cost allocation was a valid and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and the Rules of Procedure.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, seeks interim measures against the respondents, Lepu Medical entities, for alleged patent infringement. The respondents filed an objection on August 11, 2025, and requested that certain confidential information be protected with restricted access to designated persons.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving European Patent EP 2 133 289. Due to irregularities in the CMS, the filing dates of the defendant's reply and counterclaim for revocation were inconsistent, creating uncertainty about the applicable deadlines. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension to September 9, 2025, which the defendant agreed to, but the court only partially granted the request, extending the deadline to September 5, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend.
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. as inadmissible under Article 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. acts as a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH, a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Düsseldorf Local Division, and that the revocation action was a concerted strategy to circumvent the UPCA scheme. The Court held that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant for assessing the 'same parties' element, the mere existence of a concerted procedural strategy is insufficient to establish a straw company relationship.
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.