IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 57 of 189 · 5,670 total
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in a revocation action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the revocation of Ballinno B.V.'s European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 and the subsequent settlement between the parties, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH requested the release of the security for procedural costs that Ballinno had previously deposited with the Court. Both parties consented to the release, and the Court ordered the transfer of the EUR 25,000 to Kinexon.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), requested to deposit two physical objects as exhibit BB38 to support positions taken in its rejoinder. The claimant opposed the request as untimely, and the court dismissed the application, finding that no adequate explanation was provided for why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s 9,036,701 patent. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy benefits of settlement.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA and Nokia Technologies have settled the IPR on Nokia's U.S. Patent No. 9,036,701 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia over patents 9,036,701 and 11,805,267. The Board granted joint motions to terminate, ending the IPRs before institution.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected expert's application for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had declared expert's application for cost assessment inadmissible as time-barred under R. 151 RoP, having been filed more than one month after the main decision was served via the CMS. The Court of Appeal held that no preliminary reference to the CJEU was necessary, finding that the one-month deadline under R. 151 RoP is not disproportionate and does not violate Art. 69 UPCA or Art. 47 of the EU Charter.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against the respondents Lepu Medical entities, who raised both infringement and validity objections. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Art. 8(5) sentence 2 EPGÜ and R. 34 RoP, with the consent of all parties.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order concerns a Rule 333 review request by Centripetal Limited seeking to overturn the judge-rapporteur's refusal to allow a further written pleading introducing a fifth infringement reading in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, rejecting the request on grounds of procedural fairness, timing constraints, and the Claimant's failure to act promptly on functionalities it had known about for some time. Leave to appeal was not granted.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,905,895 and jointly requested that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The petition seeks withdrawal from the proceeding and confidentiality for the agreement.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac, together with Champion Power Equipment, filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the IPR file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related IPRs.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek IPR cancellation of all 21 claims of Champion’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing obviousness over DuroMax, Elsdon, Parlatore, Hallberg and a lack of structural support for key claim terms.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Marlin’s FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition details five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...
Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.
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.