IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 42 of 189 · 5,670 total
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
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.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 32 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’2901 wireless headset patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging all 82 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’789 hearing‑enhancement patent. The petition asserts lack of written‑description support and cites multiple prior‑art references to render the claims anticipated or obvious under §§102 and 103.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering a hemostasis valve. The petitioner alleges obviousness over prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Hermann and seeks institution of the review.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of K.Mizra’s network‑quarantine patent, arguing obviousness over prior art (Freund, Ball, Pujare) and urging the Board to institute trial after a prior institution denial was deemed erroneous.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of K.Mizra’s ’705 patent covering network quarantine and remediation. The petition relies on obviousness over Freund, Ball, Pujare, and Lewis, and cites a Federal Circuit remand of a prior Cisco IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s 7,279,708 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all asserted claims are obvious over four prior‑art references and urges the PTAB to institute the review.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of IngenioSpec’s ‘518 headset patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over a series of prior‑art headset references. The petition groups the challenges into multiple obviousness grounds covering the full claim set.
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.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Dr. Falk Pharma and Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, allowing the challenge to move forward.
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.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01444, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al., based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.
Grasim Industries Limited And Anr. v.Omni Cement Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Grasim Industries Limited against Omni Cement Private Limited. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and permission to file additional pleadings. Crucially, the court directed a Local Commissioner to execute an inventory of goods, seize infringing stock under superdari, and ensure compliance with interim injunction procedures, setting the stage for the substantive dispute over the 'ULTRATECH' trademark.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
The defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o. before the Local Division Munich requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The claimant agreed to the change, and the President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent EP2622601 was granted.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937 against TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and three related TP-LINK entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings, and with the agreement of all parties, the court ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP until the EPO decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings conclude.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touchscreen display patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
Kowa Company Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kowa Company Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order issued by The Controller of Patents & Anr. on May 14, 2025, concerning Patent Application No. 201717010446.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce its registered trademark 'Mather' against entities registering deceptively similar corporate names. The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was failing in its duty to prevent serial infringement of their well-known brand name, which has been used since 1944. While the respondents initially raised a challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court ordered notice to all parties and scheduled further hearings to examine the maintainability and merits of the trademark enforcement claim.
Aries Agro Limited & Anr. v.Indiamart Intermesh Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aries Agro Limited against Indiamart Intermesh Limited. The court granted exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgent need for interim relief to prevent the suppression of infringing business operations. Furthermore, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and set out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements and replication, while also permitting the Plaintiffs to introduce additional documents.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH, BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG, BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL., and NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. sought provisional measures before the Local Division The Hague against members of the BEGA group and NEG Novex, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 522 755 B1 relating to a cabinet for housing a washing machine at waist level. The defendants had previously been licensed to manufacture such cabinets, but the license was terminated effective 1 August 2024. The court found a reasonable likelihood of validity and infringement, sufficient urgency, and granted the provisional measures including a prohibition on manufacturing and selling the accused 'Laundreezy' and 'Respekta Clara' cabinets, recall orders, information obligations, and penalty payments, along with a cost award of EUR 62,600.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This procedural order concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Merz entities against Viatris Santé regarding European Patent EP2377536 and its French Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) FR13C0033. Merz sought an order requiring Viatris to consolidate its 473-page Objection into a shorter document, arguing the disparity in submission lengths would deprive them of an equal opportunity to defend their case. The judge rapporteur found the 470-page objection inappropriate in the context of provisional measures and ordered Viatris to file a 70-page summary, with Merz permitted a 40-page reply.
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.