IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 57 of 140 · 4,175 total
Visibly Inc. v.Respondent
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
Astral Ltd v.Grasim Industries Ltd
Astral Ltd successfully reached an amicable settlement with Grasim Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to building materials. The court accepted the joint application, leading to a decree that incorporates all the detailed settlement terms. Under these terms, Grasim recognized Astral's exclusive rights while agreeing to adopt a new label and cease using the impugned mark in specific ways, effectively resolving the dispute.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH for revocation of an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 of the EPG Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether the rapporteur could retroactively change the starting date of the deadline for initiating main proceedings, given that the court-appointed expert had delivered the inspection report later than originally anticipated. The court held that while the length of the deadline is fixed, the starting date is within the court's discretion and may be modified, particularly when the expert submits the report late.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. before the Court of Appeal. Philips had filed the application by mistake, as cost assessment applications fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Local Chamber Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal under Rule 265(1) of the Rules of Procedure without requiring a hearing of Belkin, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
TIRU v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_132/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 22/07/2025 REQUERANT (Demandeur à la procédure au principal) TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté par Cyrille AMAR, cabinet Amar Goussu
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited
This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.
Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_361/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Sabine A
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_362/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2025 Concerning the protection of confidential information APPLICANT 1) Sun Patent Trust 437 Madison Avenue, 35th Floor 10022 - New York – US Represented by Caroline
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich following a FRAND interim hearing concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, set out directions for the parties to exchange further written submissions on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file further submissions by August 11, 2025 and Lenovo to respond by September 1, 2025. The order also addressed scheduling matters, including a video conference interim hearing on September 25, 2025 and the confirmation of the oral hearing on November 19, 2025.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
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.