IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 49 of 140 · 4,175 total
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 presents aggregate PTAB IPR statistics for hard‑disk patents, noting a 100% institution rate across 4,148 trials. Twenty percent of those trials produced mixed claim findings, while the majority favored the petitioner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,115,731 B2, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding before trial.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,545,247 B2 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of Cisco’s IPR petition covering 21 claims of a 2008 wireless‑mesh patent, arguing settled expectations, weak invalidity grounds, and unfavorable Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’952 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Ganz, Srikrishna, Bishop and the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The PTAB issued multiple institution decisions, granting IPR for several cases including IPR2025-01516 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-merits grounds.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
Joy Creators Llp v.Best Medicals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Joy Creators LLP against Best Medicals & Ors., based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the parties. The judgment confirms that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'JOY' trademark and grants permanent injunction relief. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement for damages and costs, leading to the court also directing the refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the multi-sports aggregator platform 'FanCode'. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds exclusive broadcast reproduction rights for various major sporting events through licensing agreements. Given the immediate and irreparable pecuniary loss caused by unauthorized streaming on rogue websites, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with blocking orders while ensuring compliance procedures were followed.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
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.