IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 54 of 189 · 5,670 total
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns a dispute over the starting point of time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD) in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3407524. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, when the final confidentiality order was issued, but granted a three-week extension to account for the period during which Vivo voluntarily postponed access to the unredacted file at Sun Patent Trust's request. Vivo was ordered to file any PO by September 28, 2025, and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation v.TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714)
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike, S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs. Dainese S.p.A. sought to restrict access to certain exhibits and information containing its financial data, while the defendants (Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike) agreed to confidentiality but requested access for at least one natural person from their side. The Court established a confidentiality club including the defendants' UPC representatives and Ms. Caterina Buccimazza (General Counsel of Defendant 1), granted leave to appeal, and ordered a suspensive effect for the additional person's access.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_361/2025) involving European Patent EP3852468 owned by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities. The court addressed Vivo's request for clarification regarding the starting point of the time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD), following a contested confidentiality regime order. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, but granted a limited three-week extension, requiring Vivo to file any PO by September 28, 2025 and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.Gautam Kumar & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Gautam Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, addressing alleged infringement of its flagship 'MAXO' brand mosquito repellent product. The court recognized that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spying cameras embedded within or bearing deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered products. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from dealing in these infringing goods and ordered to remove all related listings and advertisements from major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its Micron affiliates successfully invalidated all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent in an IPR, finding the claims obvious over prior art references Kim, Rajan, and Wyman.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent were obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB found the majority of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent claims obvious over the Ellsberry reference and related standards, cancelling 63 of 65 challenged claims while leaving claims 40‑41 intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 18‑23, 39‑44, and 56‑60 of Netlist’s ’537 patent are obvious over the Amidi and Klein references, rendering all 17 challenged claims unpatentable. The decision follows an institution on the same claims and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Netlist’s high‑bandwidth memory patent. Samsung argues the Director has already rejected Netlist’s real‑party‑in‑interest arguments and that Netlist waived its Fintiv arguments, supporting denial of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist requests the PTAB Director reverse the institution of a PGR against its ’087 patent, arguing Samsung failed to name Samsung Electronics America as a real party in interest. The filing also highlights duplication with parallel ITC proceedings involving Google and Super Micro.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's petition for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions intact. The Director recused herself, and authority was delegated to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding claim 16 unpatentable as obvious over the Ellsberry reference.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent obvious over the Perego disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Samsung’s PGR, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
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.