IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 52 of 140 · 4,175 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215. Defendant MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for certain information, relying on a non-disclosure agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. Huawei confirmed the NDA and raised no objections to the requested access restrictions. The Local Chamber Munich granted the application in the scope set out in the order, ordering confidentiality measures, exclusion of the public from hearings and judgment pronouncement regarding confidential information, redaction before publication, and exclusion of confidential information from third-party file access.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
3: «Specifications in the description that are not consistent with the granted claims cannot serve as a basis of a broad interpretation of a claim.”) 2- L’admissibilité d’une demande alléguée tardive : En l’espèce, la Cour considère que la demande de contrefaçon par équivalence qui intervient juste après le mémoire en défense n’est pas tardive (au stade du mémoire en réplique), car cette demande ne change pas la nature de la stratégie procédurale du demandeur qui ne fait que l’adapter a
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_587/2025 UPC_CFI_624/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/08/2025 APPLICANT 1) A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant, Defendant in the main proceedings, hereinafter: “Menarini”) - Via
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.
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 EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Anker Innovations (Netherlands) B.V., Anker Technology (UK) Ltd., Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd., Anker Innovations Ltd., Fantasia Trading LLC, Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
Astellas Pharma Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astellas Pharma Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of its Indian Patent No. 292990 by Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and others. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants 8 and 9 to cease marketing and listing of the infringing product GILTERNIB.
Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited
Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
Ntn Corporation v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ntn Corporation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'NTW'. The court held that despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity between 'NTN' and 'NTW', the marks were not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellant's claims of prior use, concluding that the difference in letters ('W' vs 'N') was sufficient to distinguish the two trademarks.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.M/S Hilton Cloud Resort
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against M/S Hilton Cloud Resort, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using the name 'HILTON CLOUD RESORT' or any confusingly similar mark while also granting four weeks to remove all listings and usage of the impugned mark across various platforms. This order sets the stage for the full trial, establishing immediate protection for the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Triveniprime Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by Triveni Household Items Manufacturers against Triveniprime Industries Private Limited concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions regarding its trademarks, 'TRIVENI' and 'TRIVENI ALMIRAH'. While the court granted procedural reliefs such as extensions for filing fees and leave to file additional documents, it also directed that the matter proceed with an interim injunction hearing on August 20, 2025.
Ozone Overseas Private Limited v.Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Hardware Solutions & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Ozone Overseas Private Limited, a leading global provider of architectural hardware. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants, recognizing the urgency of seeking an ad interim injunction. Crucially, the court allowed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct searches and seizures at the defendant's premises, ensuring evidence preservation in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA, ZENTIVA K.S.
1. Art. 69 UPCA, by requiring legal costs to be proportionate and reasonable (see also Rule 152.1 RoP), establishes a legal standard that enables the judge-rapporteur to issue a decision on legal costs. One might ask whether this provision is compliant with Art. 8 and 78 UPCA, which provide for a decision to be issued in principle by a panel. It can be assumed that, once a decision on the merits has been taken, the requirements of proceedings efficiency and proportionality prevail (the deci
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
Toyota Motor Europe v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 31. July 2025 ACT 579176/2023 UPC_CFI-361/2023 PARTIES: Claimant: Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA, Avenue du Bourget 60, 1140 Evere, Belgiu
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
The document is a January 14, 2021 notice of termination of agreement submitted as an exhibit in IPR2025-01366 between Fresh Products, LLC and Sanastar, Inc. The termination suggests the parties may have settled the dispute.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of VB Assets’ ’025 patent covering voice‑driven song dedication, arguing the claims are obvious over existing speech‑interface and music‑dedication technologies.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited v.Miniso Life Style Private Limited
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.
Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food Products v.Mr. Dhruv Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petitions filed by M/s Parul Food Products against Mr. Dhruv Singh, cancelling two registered trade marks ('FUNSHINE' and a Device Mark) in Class 30. The court found that these Impugned Marks were deceptively and identically similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'FUNFINE'. Given the Petitioner's prior use since 2005 compared to the Respondent's registration date of 2017, the judgment reinforced the principle that a prior user's rights supersede subsequent registrations when likelihood of confusion exists.
RENAULT SAS v.Respondent
This procedural matter concerns an application by Renault SAS for access to the court register and file of three concluded proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement. The original infringement action and revocation counterclaim had been terminated following withdrawal permitted by decisions dated 7 January 2025. Renault sought access to review Avago's legal and technical arguments, claim interpretation positions, validity arguments, and patent amendments, while the defendants (Tesla) consented to access to a specific list of pleadings but opposed broader disclosure.
Aesculap AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, owned by Aesculap AG. Following a prior order dated July 10, 2025, which required Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) to cease offering, marketing, or using certain cutting tools for surgical torque-transmitting instruments in Germany and France, and to provide structured information about infringing products, the present order addresses Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the threat of coercive measures. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as rapporteur.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France, S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
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.