IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 51 of 140 · 4,175 total
Moderna Norway AS, Moderna, Inc., Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna France SASU, Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Germany GmbH, ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns a Rule 262A application filed by multiple Moderna entities (Applicants/Defendants in the infringement actions/Claimants in the counterclaims) seeking to designate certain information in their statement of defence/counterclaim for revocation as confidential. The Respondents/Claimants in the infringement action, Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, reached agreement with the Applicants on the members of the confidentiality club and the terms of the confidentiality order. The Local Division The Hague issued the order based on the parties' agreed terms as set out in the confidentiality agreement submitted as exhibit G122.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a referral decision, arguing that proceeding with the IPR would duplicate the ongoing MDL concerning mercury‑control patents and waste resources. The brief cites efficiency concerns and prior PTAB rulings to request denial of institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under applicable statutes.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
A joint settlement between WEC Energy Group and BirchTech has prompted a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,926,218. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317 to dismiss WEC from the proceeding before any merits decision. The Board must now decide whether to grant the termination.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a mercury removal patent (10926218) after the Director remanded the case due to multiple concurrent petitions. The denial was based on following the Director's instruction to prioritize one petition over another.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp successfully challenged 26 claims of Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10926218) related to flue gas desulfurization, leading the PTAB to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board concluded that combining prior art references was an obvious application of known techniques in mercury removal technology.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Gurjinder Kaur & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition filed under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued directions to issue notices to all parties involved in the trademark matter. Furthermore, separate applications seeking interim relief (under CPC) were also addressed by setting timelines for filing replies and listing the matters before the Joint Registrar and the Court.
Nilkamal Crates And Containers & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Nilkamal Crates And Containers after a settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5. The settlement confirmed Nilkamal's ownership of its well-known 'NILKAMAL' trademark and required Defendant No. 5 to cease all activities related to manufacturing or trading deceptively similar goods, such as mattresses. Furthermore, Defendant No. 5 agreed to pay damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in a trademark opposition case filed by Bajaj Auto Limited against M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr. The court directed that notice be served to all parties, allowing four weeks for filing replies and rejoinders. The matter was subsequently scheduled for listing before the Joint Registrar (J) on September 9, 2025, and then before the Court again on November 19, 2025.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a Rectification Petition filed by M/S Prakash Pipes Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition sought the cancellation and removal of the trade mark 'PARKASHPOWER' (Registration No. 4798175) from the register. With no objection from certain respondents, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed, thereby rectifying the trademark registry.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.S. Tejinder Pal Singh & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited. The court issued directions to serve notices on the respective respondents, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders. Both the main opposition case and associated interim applications were listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Manpreet Gogia & Ors.
Bajaj Auto Limited filed a petition under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, initiating trademark opposition proceedings against certain respondents. The Delhi High Court issued directions to serve notices on all parties and set specific dates for the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court. This order marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge regarding the trademark rights.
Centripetal Limited v.Respondent
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 for a further written pleading in its infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court held that allowing additional briefing would prejudice procedural fairness, disrupt the front-loaded procedure mandated by the Rules of Procedure, and was unnecessary because the functionalities the Claimant sought to newly attack had been known to it for considerable time.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.Respondent
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for confidentiality in a patent infringement dispute over EP 2 643 717. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Chainzone, as intervener supporting Strabag, could obtain restrictions on the use and disclosure of Fraunhofer measurement reports that had already been submitted to the Court of First Instance without any prior confidentiality request. The Court held that an application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to or use of information and evidence must be made at the time of filing the document, and a first-time request in appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted at first instance is inadmissible.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
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.