IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 54 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company v.Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed a multi-pronged order in the trademark dispute between M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company and Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff's request for exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, allowing the case to proceed directly. Simultaneously, it set dates for filing replies regarding the defendant's application for trademark rectification and the plaintiff's interim injunction request, moving the core dispute towards active litigation.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited v.M/S Hotel Hilton
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'HILTON' brand, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on July 29, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption regarding document translation while simultaneously facilitating a resolution through mandatory mediation. Crucially, the defendants stated their willingness to cease using the disputed trademark, leading the court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre and adjourn further proceedings pending its outcome.
M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Al Kareem
In a dispute over trademark similarity, the Madras High Court addressed M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking rectification of Al Kareem's mark 'AL Kareem'. Despite the petitioner asserting long-standing goodwill and deceptive similarity, the court ultimately favored the respondent. The judgment recognized the existing use of 'AL Kareem' in Hyderabad but imposed a crucial geographical limitation on its registration to prevent confusion outside that specific region.
Thumbtack Inc. v.Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Thumbtack Inc. against Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's mark 'THUMBSUP' is a deliberate and mala fide imitation of Thumbtack’s registered trademark, 'THUMBTACK.' The court noted the triple identity—identical mark, identical product category (home services), and identical consumer base—and restrained the Defendants from using any deceptively similar marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division Lisbon in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1, brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc. Following a prior order dated 14 July 2025, both parties reached agreement on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and on hearing the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation together. The Court accepted the parties' joint proposal to reschedule the Oral Hearing to 25 March 2026 and issued orders regarding the allocation of a Technically Qualified Judge, the interim conference, and the Oral Hearing.
*** v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was filed against Essetre Holding s.p.a. concerning European Patent No. EP 2 875 923 B1, which relates to a machine for machining walls, particularly walls made of wood or multilayer walls. The claimant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over a German patent document (DE 34 12 441 C2) and a YouTube video, and lacked inventive step over the prior art in combination with common general knowledge or additional cited references. The Court addressed the interpretation of the term 'a working surface' in the independent claim, affirming that it should be interpreted as meaning 'one working surface' based on its ordinary meaning and the context of the patent's description and drawings.
Roborock Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for an extension of time limits in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for filing their opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to August 26, 2025, and the deadlines for the statement of defense under Rule 23 and the counterclaim for revocation under Rule 25 to October 27, 2025. The plaintiff consented to the extensions, and the presiding judge granted the request.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Respondent
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an Appeal under Section 117A(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 26.12.2024 which rejected its patent application (No. 202211027823). The court also disposed of applications regarding exemption and condoned a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal.
Diya Aggarwal v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Diya Aggarwal has filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register her trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and set out a procedural schedule for the matter. This order directs both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders, indicating that the case is moving forward through the appellate process.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Eco Tech Recycling & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Eco Tech Recycling & Ors. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, ruling that the defendants' actions—specifically reintroducing scrapped or disposed products into the market—posed grave harm to the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff's registered trademarks (including PURPLLE) and copyrights. This protective order aims to safeguard consumer trust and prevent further unauthorized commercial activity related to the plaintiffs' intellectual property.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.
Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt Ltd v.Urmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings related to European Patent EP 2661892. Seoul Viosys had successfully filed a preliminary objection requesting the transfer of Photon Wave's revocation action from the Paris Central Division to the Paris Local Division, with Photon Wave ordered to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys's legal costs. The court addressed the admissibility of a separate cost decision under Rule 150 RoP when a division declines jurisdiction and refers the case to another division, holding that such an application is admissible but subject to a significantly lower cost ceiling than full proceedings.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited appealed the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently obtained registrations for ceiling fans that infringed upon Atomberg's registered design (No. 309694). The dispute also involved claims of passing off due to similarity in aesthetic features and market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'. The dispute also involved claims of passing off, given Atomberg's established market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order that refused to grant an interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied its registered ceiling fan design, 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan,' and committed passing off. The court examined the comparison between the two designs and found that prima facie differences existed in various aspects of the products and packaging. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed Atomberg's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 July 2025 App_32933/2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr
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.