IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 50 of 140 · 4,175 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.
Energy Beverages Pvt Ltd v.Ekadanta Packaged Drinking Water and Others
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and trademark infringement against the respondents. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'CLEAR' and proprietary rights over its artistic label and bottle shape, arguing that the defendant's use of 'CLEAR GOLD' amounted to infringement and passing off.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Sidharth Jindal v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Sidharth Jindal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of his word mark application, 'BANGTAN BOYS BTS.' The court found that the initial objections raised under Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act were unsustainable. Crucially, the court overturned the rejection based on the 'proposed-to-be-used' basis, holding that this conclusion was erroneous and contrary to Section 18 of the TM Act. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for advertisement.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO BILLING US CORP., AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.Respondent
The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking cost assessment for attorney fees incurred during an appeal proceeding brought by the plaintiffs against an order requiring security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Local Chamber Mannheim held the application inadmissible, ruling that costs arising from the application, opposition, or defense of procedural orders, including security-for-costs orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under Rule 150 RoP but must instead be assessed as part of the overall procedural costs in the cost assessment following the substantive decision.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect certain cost-related information submitted in connection with its application for a cost decision under Rule 150 et seq. RoP. The information sought to be protected is a breakdown of the hours worked by its legal representatives. The Respondents (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) opposed the request, arguing there was no legitimate interest in confidentiality vis-à-vis them. The legally qualified judge Böttcher, acting as judge-rapporteur, issued the procedural order addressing the confidentiality request.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Bodycap, Université de Rennes v.EPO
1 UPC_CFI_628/2025 ORDONNANCE du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet Division Centrale (section de Milan) concernant une Action contre une décision de l’OEB (règle 97 RdP) rendue le 6 août 2025 DEMANDEURS 1) Bodycap 6, rue du docteur Laënnec 14200 -
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs sought leave to inspect documents filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 30 CPC, which related to disclosure of turnover concerning patented PCA units. The Court constituted a Confidentiality Club to facilitate this inspection, subject to prescribed rules.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against Hilton Holidays And Resorts Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of 'HILTON HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED' and associated testimonials led customers to believe there was a direct connection with the plaintiff's established brand. Furthermore, the court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
igus GmbH v.Respondent
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 912 243 B1. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, a German company based in Cologne, holds the patent directed to a compact cable guide for cleanroom applications with a sheath unit and clamping device. The defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, failed to appear in the proceedings, leading to the default ruling. The patent was filed on January 14, 2020, granted on March 20, 2024, and granted unitary effect on April 17, 2024.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for multiple claims in the audio device patent (11197084). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references, particularly Li and Fujita, renders the claimed earphone structure obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd filed a suit against Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr. alleging infringement of three specific patents related to camera lens assemblies. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants' Honor 200 series products infringe these patented technologies.
Mebigo Labs Private Limited v.Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Mebigo Labs Private Limited against Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and trademark dilution by the defendant's use of similar branding ('Story TV'). Furthermore, the court directed Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) to suspend specific infringing advertisements on Facebook and Instagram, protecting Mebigo Labs' digital content platform 'KUKU FM'.
Red Bull Ag v.M/S Bhavnagari Herbal Pharmacy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Red Bull Ag against M/S Bhavnagari Herbal Pharmacy & Ors. The court granted an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect, photograph, and potentially seize infringing goods from the defendants' premises. This decisive step allows the plaintiff to secure evidence of ongoing trademark misuse while the main suit proceeds.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Respondent
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_162/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 August 2025 concerning EP 2 028 981 concerning App_33193/2025 (Request for a penalty payment, R. 354.4 RoP) concerning App_33935/2025 (request for the extens
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning three European patents (EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762) in a dispute between CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (plaintiff) and ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (defendant). The court addressed the question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the UPC Agreement regarding the handling of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. With the agreement of both parties, the chamber ordered that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim be heard jointly, citing procedural efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technical subject matter.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1. The applicant Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought preliminary measures against respondent BAG Diagnostics GmbH, who challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent. The presiding judge ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel, finding it appropriate given the substantive validity challenges raised by the respondent.
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.