IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 41 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Netlist’s 10,025,731 memory‑module patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art from Ellsberry, Dour, and Abadeer. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
Atrius has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate ABC IP’s forced‑reset trigger patent (US 12,038,247) by arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents and publicly posted YouTube videos that disclose a three‑position selector.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’510 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition presents three grounds, each invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103, targeting the entire claim set.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services’ hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing that claims 1‑14 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’775 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Boelter, Gruber, and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 25 claims of MessageLoud's 9,591,117 patent covering hands‑free message notification, citing Boelter, Gruber and Polak as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,471,950. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Tsujino, Shui, and Iwasaki—across three separate grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Maxell’s ’198 patent covering digital image playlist creation, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds, each pairing specific claim groups with combinations of earlier patents.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01473 for Atrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP, LLC because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
Titan Company Limited v.M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr.
Titan Company Limited filed a suit against M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrighted images, and registered designs associated with the 'Tanishq' brand. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were using these proprietary assets on their website and social media to sell jewellery products. After considering the submissions, including an undertaking from the Defendants, the court decreed the suit.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Active Ayurvedic Life Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Pstgems Private Limited, an ex parte ad-interim injunction in a suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its trademark 'BRAMPIUM' and associated copyrights. The court recognized the urgency of the matter concerning counterfeit products and ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with accessing Defendant No. 1's premises, reviewing CCTV footage, and examining account books and stock registers to gather evidence of infringement.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Nitin Maheshwari And Anr v.Patanjali Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Respondent
Faro Technologies, Inc. withdrew its application for interim measures against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and sought a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid in connection with that application under Rule 370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Rule 370.9(b)(i) applies only to actions and cannot be applied directly or by analogy to applications for interim measures. The court further noted that the fixed court fee for an interim measures application is already substantially reduced compared to a full action and does not depend on the number of parties, so no partial reimbursement was warranted even if the rule had applied.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate Meridian International’s 11,192,689 patent covering a stackable storage system with a sliding latch. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute and request the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while Generac Power Systems continues as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential, limiting access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
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.