IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 56 of 140 · 4,175 total
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
The petition challenges the action of Respondent No.1 (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) for accepting a Counter Statement filed by Respondent No.2 beyond the statutory two-month period stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that the matter would be heard ex-parte against Respondent No.2 due to non-appearance despite service.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Upgrad Education Private Limited v.Lavangiri Ansar Basha And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Upgrad Education Private Limited against Lavangiri Ansar Basha and others. The court found that the defendant was actively making false, malicious, and disparaging statements about the plaintiff's brand 'upGrad' on social media platforms, including using the trademark with derogatory hashtags like 'scam' and 'fraud'. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from further defamatory posts until the next hearing, while the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had filed his application on 27 March 2025, well after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the transitional period is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception, and that a clerical error by the applicant's paralegal department did not justify reinstating his right to registration.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Décision de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE (DEMANDERESSE DANS LA PROCEDURE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE I
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the arrangement of private interpreters at an upcoming oral hearing in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants, Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own cost to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge ruled that the interpreters could participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the main courtroom 212, which lacks interpreter booths, and rejected the remainder of the request.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted a CEIPI certificate dated 8 July 2022, which predated the Administrative Committee's November 2023 accreditation decision under Rule 1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that there is no de facto continuity between an accredited course under Rule 1 and a course referenced in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, and therefore the applicant did not possess a valid certificate at the time of filing.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The Registrar had rejected the application because it was filed on 18 April 2025, outside the one-year transitional period from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement on 1 June 2023, as required by Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The applicant argued that Rule 12.1 only defines when a qualification is deemed appropriate and does not impose a filing deadline. The President upheld the Registrar's decision, confirming that the transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules is, as a rule, not subject to extension or exception.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 DECISION de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) et une demande de remboursement des frais de procédure (R. 370.9 RdP) rendue le 24 juillet 2025 APPELANTE DANS LA PROCEDURE D’APPEL APL_2052/2025 ET INTIMEE DANS LA PROCEDU
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1, in which the plaintiff Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG filed a patent infringement action against CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, and the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the written proceedings were concluded, both parties filed requests on July 14, 2025 to withdraw their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaim, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the partial reimbursement of unused court fees to the plaintiff.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for review challenging the Registrar's refusal to register the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 21 February 2025, after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules had expired on 1 June 2024. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related personal circumstances did not justify the delayed submission.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged an order of refusal dated 30.05.2023 passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order summarily rejected the application without examining the submissions made in response to the First Examination Report (FER).
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.
Upgrid Solutions Private Limited v.Vikas Pal And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Upgrid Solutions against Vikas Pal and others. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial evidence, including GPS-tagged photographs of unauthorized swap stations and true-caller screenshots, citing the need for substantial justice. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of protecting its 'Battery Smart' brand, the Court granted an interim injunction through the appointment of Receivers to secure the plaintiff's assets and prevent further infringement.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
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.