IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 42 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, contending that the prior art never teaches the claimed ‘unlock’ function and that Samsung’s expert testimony is conclusory.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate W&Wsens' 12,243,948 patent covering microstructured photodetectors, asserting obviousness over Kuboi, Vasylyev and Shinohara and lack of enablement.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Meridian International’s ’946 patent covering a stackable storage box with a stop‑part mechanism. The petitioner alleges the invention is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Li and Baruch. The Board is asked to institute the trial and invalidate the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’228 patent covering biometric unlock and communication between a smartwatch and smartphone, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on six grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining Aminzade with Sowers, Soli, Hong, and Altman.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01388 after determining the petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional reviews.
Decathlon v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 697 604. The Claimant (Decathlon) requested that the court disregard portions of the Defendants' rejoinder to the application to amend the patent, which contained arguments regarding the validity of the patent as granted. The court granted the request, holding that such content exceeded the permissible scope of a rejoinder under the Rules of Procedure, and informed the parties of its intention to close the written procedure on 1 September 2025.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has petitioned the PTAB to cancel three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid generation patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references. The petition details claim constructions and shows overlapping component ratios with the references.
Liberty Energy Services LLC 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' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Nokia of America Corporation v.SPADA INNOVATIONS, INC.
The USPTO Board denied institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings, including IPR2025-01442, citing failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP, arguing that as a Chinese-domiciled entity, enforcement of a cost order in China would be uncertain. Huawei countered by providing a legally binding assurance that any cost decision could be served on its German subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Deutschland GmbH.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB v.Respondent
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
ULRICH HERPICH E.K, HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY , MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L., Alpinestars S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A, OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns an application by Dainese S.p.A. for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs requested by the defendants. Dainese sought to restrict access to certain financial information and exhibits, while the defendants agreed with the confidentiality designation but requested broader access for their representatives and key personnel. The Court addressed the balance between protecting confidential business information and ensuring the defendants' right to a fair trial.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/08/2025 concerning R. 9.1 and R. 9.3 (a) RoP APPLICANTS 1) Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL Calle Orense 58, Planta 12 C 28020 - Madrid – ES 2) 3) Vivo Tech GmbH Spe
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.Respondent
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.Gautam Kumar & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Gautam Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, addressing alleged infringement of its flagship 'MAXO' brand mosquito repellent product. The court recognized that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spying cameras embedded within or bearing deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered products. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from dealing in these infringing goods and ordered to remove all related listings and advertisements from major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
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.