IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 189 · 5,670 total
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL (with Ekahau Oy as Counter-Defendant 2)
This order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant (Ona Patents SL) withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants (Apple entities) withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees paid in relation to the counterclaim for revocation, amounting to €8,000.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.Wasombouw B.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
This is a final procedural order of the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP3522755, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following a prior order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and ordered electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wacom’s ’220 patent on active‑stylus communication, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against One‑E‑Way’s 9,107,000 patent covering wireless digital audio systems, challenging ten claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01541 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision moves the case forward to merits review.
Parth Formulation Pvt Ltd v.Paam Biotech Private Limited
In a passing-off dispute concerning pharmaceutical packaging, the Delhi High Court found prima facie that the defendants' packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. While the court noted the parties were open to settlement, it directed Paam Biotech to change its packaging color away from red and mandated Parth Formulation to submit sales data for the past three years.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the context of infringement proceedings regarding EP 3 567 731. The court partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements it had identified on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 submission with its reply to the statement of defense, while rejecting the request for two additional agreements and for ancillary agreements/amendments.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by the co-owners of EP 3 691 518 against the rejection of their request for unitary effect. The court confirmed that the one-month non-extendable deadline under Rule 7(3) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (RPU) for remedying irregularities is mandatory and excluded from restitutio in integrum under Rule 22(6) RPU. The court also held that interlocutory revision by the EPO under Rule 91 RoP is excluded for expedited actions under Rule 97 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Apple Inc. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor power management, seeking cancellation of ten claims as obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
M/s.Darshan International v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Gi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Darshan International, allowing them to proceed with their trademark registration for 'Darshan Incense.' The court addressed the issue of non-receipt of the notice of opposition by the petitioner, which led to the abandonment of their application. Citing a similar precedent, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the application and permit the petitioner to file a counter statement, ensuring they receive a fair opportunity to defend their mark.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v.Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.
Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a request by the claimant, Dolby International AB, for simultaneous interpretation from German to English at an oral hearing in a patent infringement action. The court allowed Dolby to hire an interpreter at its own cost to use the existing interpretation equipment, but rejected the request to have the interpretation costs treated as procedural costs, finding that Dolby was not disproportionately disadvantaged by the German procedural language given that its legal representatives were German-speaking.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare and others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. Defendants 2 and 3 requested security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant, a recently founded Texas-based licensing entity, lacked sufficient financial resources to satisfy a potential cost reimbursement claim. The judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 600,000, and the panel rejected the Claimant's request for review under R. 333 RoP, finding the amount appropriate given the complexity of the proceedings and the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Beckman Coulter’s 2024 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs and lack of written description and enablement for key claim elements such as a “curved mirror” and “semiconductor detector.”
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.