IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 48 of 140 · 4,175 total
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
Nine Stars Group filed a preliminary response opposing an IPR petition by Guangzhou EKO. The owner contends the cited Chinese patents are not prior art and, even if they were, do not make the ’796 claims obvious. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
An exhibit submitted by Netskope shows K.Mizra's extensive litigation history, listing dozens of active and terminated district‑court cases. The document is used to underscore a pattern of settlements in the IPR challenge of patent 8234705.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01369 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Ranjan Kumar Yadav Owner Of Anavi Collection
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Ranjan Kumar Yadav for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's', in relation to clothing and accessories. The court proceeded ex parte against the defendant due to non-appearance and found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks on inferior quality goods.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd., White Water Era GmbH v.Surftown GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 728 089 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The Claimant, American Wave Machines, Inc., is involved in infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four Defendants. The court amended its prior order of 1 August 2025 to classify certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential and to restrict access to unredacted versions of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
Cisco Systems GmbH , Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding a request for extension of time limits in an appeal concerning EP 2 201 740. Cisco requested a one-month extension to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal, while Lionra argued for only one week or ten calendar days. The Court extended the deadline by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco was entitled to an extension because it had only recently gained access to the unredacted version of Lionra's appeal brief.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. At the joint request of both parties under Rule 321 of the Rules of Procedure, the language of proceedings was changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas in place of legally qualified judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,173,100 covering vehicle network security. The petition argues lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. Ford seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.
Natural Medicine Institute Of Zhejiang v.The Deputy Controller of Patents And The Controller of Patents
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 6275/CHENP/2011) for 'A MORDANT AND HAIR COLORING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME'. The rejection was based on procedural grounds regarding claim amendments, but the court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Western Digital Technologies Inc. against M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was selling manipulated and refurbished HDDs bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, thereby infringing on their brand rights and engaging in passing off. This interim relief prevents the defendant from further tampering with or commercially dealing in the branded products until the final hearing.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff, Bombay Dyeing, to implead two new entities, M/s Ooak Association and M/s Urban Stuff Retail, as defendants in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that these newly identified parties were organizers of an exhibition where counterfeit 'BOMBAY DYEING' bed linens were being sold. Furthermore, the Court granted exemption from advance service to several existing defendants, facilitating the continuation of the injunction proceedings against the infringing products.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a dispute over security for costs in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 670 898. The Defendants (Arthrex entities) requested EUR 3,300,000 in security (EUR 1,100,000 per Defendant), while the Claimant (Syntorr LP) opposed any security order or alternatively requested a reduced amount of EUR 1,000,000–2,000,000, offering to provide security via litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement. The Judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide EUR 2,000,000 in security by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit into the Court's account, ruling that the Claimant's insurance policy was not adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP and that an amount exceeding the regular ceiling for recoverable costs was not justified.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application (202034009705) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 and negligence of the Indian Patent Agent, not intentional inaction. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the mandatory timelines under the Patents Act must be complied with, and the petitioner demonstrated an indolent attitude.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
The court passed several orders on various interlocutory applications related to the main patent dispute. Directions were given regarding the filing of additional documents, permission was granted for amending claims under Sections 58 and 59 of the Patents Act, and an application seeking amendment in a Revocation Petition was disposed of while reserving rights.
Force Motors Limited v.Houstan Innovations Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed several interim applications in the dispute between Force Motors Limited and Houstan Innovations LLP. While allowing procedural requests like filing additional documents, the court focused heavily on the request for an ad-interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the Plaintiff's established goodwill with 'FORCE', the court granted a temporary restraint order, preventing the Defendant from using the similar mark 'GT FORCE' in relation to identical or similar products until the next hearing date.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. against the dismissal of its trademark opposition. The court found that the original rejection was based on a factual error, as the Appellant had actually received the notice for filing evidence via email on September 15, 2024, not the date mentioned in the letter. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to hear and decide the opposition within two months, while also directing the registry to update the status of the trademark application.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.M/S Steris Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the removal and rectification of the trademark 'INCLISIRAN' (Registration No. 5547194) in Class 05. The court issued notice to all parties involved, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. This marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge against the registered mark.
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.