IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 45 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.
Kamdhenu Steels And Alloys Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard a petition challenging an order directing a company to change its name based on alleged resemblance to another entity's brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the application for rectification was filed within the statutory three-year limitation period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. While acknowledging the complexities of IP disputes between related entities, the Court granted a stay on the impugned order pending further arguments, allowing time to resolve the jurisdictional and temporal issues.
Google Commerce Limited & Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL (Confidentiality Order)
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co., Ltd., ECOVACS Europe GmbH, ECOVACS France S.a.r.l., and ECOVACS Robotics Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 494 446. Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) sought a two-month extension of its deadline to file a statement of defense and counterclaim for invalidity, and an extension of its Preliminary Objection deadline, to unify the procedural timetable with the other three defendants who had not yet been served. The court rejected the application, finding that Defendant 2 did not claim it needed more time for its defense but only sought procedural simplification, and that the interest in procedural unification did not outweigh the claimant's interest in proceeding without delay.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Milan concerned European Patent EP2145848 held by Oerlikon Textile GmbH. After Oerlikon filed an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited and Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, both parties reached a settlement and jointly filed a withdrawal of their respective claims. The court admitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered full compensation of costs between the parties, and declined to refund court fees.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court decision.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Cole Haan’s shoe‑midsole design patent (D768,969), arguing it is anticipated and obvious over several publicly available shoe designs.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
Hitesh Rastogi v.M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several connected trademark infringement matters involving Hitesh Rastogi and M/S. Adl Orbit Cable (India) Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner had filed these petitions without obtaining prior leave from the Civil Court under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Consequently, the matter was listed for a future date, pending the adjudication of the petitioner's application seeking such leave.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
HMD Global Oy v.Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Language of Proceedings)
HMD Global Oy, a Finnish company, requested that the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2609590 was granted. The Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, opposed the change, arguing that HMD Global, as a multinational company, could reasonably handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the position of the defendant must prevail in the balancing of interests, particularly given that HMD Global is based in a non-German speaking country and would face significant translation burdens.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI OPCO LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
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.