IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 140 · 4,175 total
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.
Bikaner Sweets Corner v.Balaji Corner & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bikaner Sweets Corner against Balaji Corner & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' adoption of the identical mark 'BIKANER SWEET CORNER' constituted potential infringement and passing off, given the proximity of the outlets and similarity of goods. Furthermore, the Defendants were immediately directed to cease using the impugned signboards and packaging within one week.
Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 UPC_CFI_192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/08/2025 Concerning: R.333 review of an order regarding a preliminary objection R. 19 RoP APPLICANTS / DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN
Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, Reflection Investment B.V., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., Oleading B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l., OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, OnePlus Technolog v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the defendants (a group of OPPO, OnePlus, Realme, and related entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Innovative Sonic Corporation based on European Patent EP2765731. The defendants argued that English, being the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, that the preferences of the first-instance panel be considered, or that oral proceedings be conducted in German even if the written language were changed.
Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr. v.Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pi Investment Advisory LLP against Registrant of Premjiex.Com & Ors. The court granted the plaintiffs exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court allowed the filing of additional documents and formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for service and pleadings.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The claimant filed suit against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis group entities. The parties jointly requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which was granted by the judge-rapporteur pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for the release of security for procedural costs in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno B.V. had been ordered on 26 August 2024 to provide €25,000 in security for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA, which it duly provided. Following the adjudication of the appeal on 26 June 2025 and the parties' subsequent settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security with the consent of Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH's bank account.
Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The order addresses several preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including the appointment of a technical judge, the use of visual aids, and the rescheduling of the main hearing. The court set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the infringement claim and the counterclaim, and rescheduled the oral hearing to 22 August 2025.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application by RiVOLUTiON GmbH for suspension of enforcement (aufschiebende Wirkung) of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Munich Local Division on August 6, 2025, in favor of Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC regarding EP 2 515 768. The Munich Local Division had ordered Rivolution to cease offering, marketing, or using surgical instruments incorporating the features of claim 1 of the patent in Germany, with a coercive penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Rivolution to pay EUR 64,000 in preliminary costs to Cilag. Rivolution appealed the decision, whose reasoning had not yet been issued, and sought suspension of its effectiveness pending the appeal.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate multiple claims of Foundation Medicine’s ’830 cancer‑sequencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and NGS analysis.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.
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.