IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 47 of 140 · 4,175 total
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.
Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.
Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file a further pleading addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants (Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş.) for the first time in their statement of defense. The court granted the application, finding that allowing a further pleading on the FRAND issue was warranted for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, and noted that the defendants would not be prejudiced and no procedural delay would result.
Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED , Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
Barco N.V. v.Respondent
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a security deposit of EUR 56,000 previously provided under Rule 158 RoP to cover the legal costs of the Defendants in proceedings related to European Patent EP1944067. The underlying provisional measures application had been dismissed, and the Claimant had been ordered to pay costs. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court ordered the release of the security deposit for direct transfer to Kinexon's bank account in accordance with the settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect’s request for review of a discretionary denial, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics relationship and AutoConnect’s lapses in fee payments and commercialization. The filing argues that these factors preclude any expectation that the ’153 patent would be enforced against Ford.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB decision that granted institution based on a supplier‑based settled‑expectations theory. AutoConnect Holdings contends the Board relied on unsupported facts about Flextronics’ supply of infotainment systems and seeks reversal.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01383 was granted, allowing the trial to proceed after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Bulgari S.P.A v.Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels
Bulgari S.P.A filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Aanchal Jain Trading As Izzari Jewels for alleged infringement of trademarks and copyright. Following mediation, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in July 2025. The Delhi High Court subsequently accepted this agreement, finding that all executory obligations had been met by the defendant. Consequently, the court disposed of the original suit strictly in terms of the settlement, while also directing the refund of the entire court fee to the plaintiff.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Sauss Home Products Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Robin' bird device mark used in FMCG products. The court first dismissed the defendant's challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, finding that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to sales and online promotion there. Subsequently, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and copyright infringement, granting an interim injunction against the defendant.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. v.Maschio Crop Protection Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. against Maschio Crop Protection Llp, halting the latter's use of the 'MASCHIO' mark and similar variants. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given its global reputation and registered rights since 1998. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the brand while the main suit proceeds.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Limra Auto Connect
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, affirming the strength of its trademark rights over 'HERO' across various products. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from serving advance notice on the defendant, M/S Limra Auto Connect. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct an inventory of alleged infringing goods, including packaging materials, ensuring the preservation of evidence in this ongoing intellectual property dispute.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aubade Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aubade Healthcare Private Limited regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, demonstrating a balance of convenience, and noting the likelihood of irreparable harm if the Defendants were not restrained from using similar marks to 'ZENTEL.' This interim order is crucial for protecting the Plaintiff's brand integrity while the main suit proceeds.
Thilakarasu Venkatasamy trading as Grand Catering Company v.Brand Avatar Llp
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions OP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024 after the parties, Thilakarasu Venkatasamy and Brand Avatar LLP, reached an out-of-court settlement. The petitions sought the removal or rectification of specific trademark entries (Registration Nos. 5795826 and 3843193) in Class 41. Given the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the proceedings to be dismissed without further order on costs.
Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. v.Baljit Singh Gandhi
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr. against Baljit Singh Gandhi. The court permitted the Plaintiffs to submit additional documentation, while also granting an exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court proceeded with interim measures, directing a Local Commission to be executed to inspect and inventory alleged infringing goods bearing the 'SIGNATURE' trademark.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns infringement actions filed by multiple Moderna entities against Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP2279254. The defendants filed their Statement of Defence along with a counterclaim for revocation and a request for confidentiality (R.262A Application) on 8 July 2025. The order addresses procedural matters under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, including the handling of confidential information in the pleadings submitted by the defendants.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
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.