IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 58 of 189 · 5,670 total
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted Dabur India Limited to amend its trademark cancellation petition against Marico Limited. The amendment corrected an inadvertent error where the petitioner had mistakenly stated that their mark was 'deceptively similar' to the respondent's mark, contrary to their actual legal stand. The court allowed the correction, emphasizing that the change did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the respondent, thereby upholding the principle of rectifying clerical errors in pleadings.
Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd v.Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio
The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant Adeia Guides Inc. sought an extension due to late filing of exhibits 8 and 9 on 5 August 2025, to which the Walt Disney defendants did not object provided their subsequent deadlines were not shortened.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 849 157, in which Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., and Ninepoint GmbH) requested an extension of the time period for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. The court granted a partial extension of approximately one week, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the delayed access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1 (an agreement between the Claimant and its co-owner) warranted only a limited extension since the relevant assertions were already contained in the unredacted statement of claim.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the separation of infringement proceedings. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 from those against Defendants 3 and 4, as service had been effected on Defendants 1 and 2 but not yet on Defendants 3 and 4, making it unreasonable to delay the proceedings against the served defendants.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s speech‑interface patent was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the asserted obviousness grounds.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,398,209. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines while they finalize the settlement and prepare dismissal filings.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Caterpillar Inc. v.Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Caterpillar Inc. filed a suit against Zhejiang Santian Oil Filter Co. Ltd. alleging infringement of its patented and designed fluid filter systems used in construction and mining machinery. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing these rights. Furthermore, the court permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect premises, seize infringing goods, and take samples for analysis.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking the appointment of a scientific expert to determine their alleged infringement of the suit patent. The plaintiff objected, stating that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter was nearing final arguments.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Nipun Sanyantra Private Limited. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds rights over its trademarks ('YATRI', 'YC'), copyrights, and design registrations related to electric vehicles. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from using any deceptively similar marks for manufacturing or selling e-rickshaws and was directed to immediately take down all infringing product listings from social media platforms.
Bikaner Sweets Corner v.Balaji Corner & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bikaner Sweets Corner against Balaji Corner & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' adoption of the identical mark 'BIKANER SWEET CORNER' constituted potential infringement and passing off, given the proximity of the outlets and similarity of goods. Furthermore, the Defendants were immediately directed to cease using the impugned signboards and packaging within one week.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
This procedural order of the Local Division The Hague concerns a Rule 333 review of a Judge Rapporteur's order on preliminary objections raised by 15 Moderna entities in two infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. Moderna had challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, and long-arm jurisdiction over various defendants. The full panel confirmed the Judge Rapporteur's order and dismissed Moderna's request for interim appeal.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and Others v.Innovative Sonic Corporation (Application No. APP_33670/2025)
The defendants in a patent infringement action before the Munich Local Division of the UPC applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2765731 was granted. The claimant, Innovative Sonic Corporation, opposed the change. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, and dismissed the claimant's alternative request for oral hearings to be held in German.
Pi Investment Advisory Llp & Anr. v.Registrant Of Premjiex.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pi Investment Advisory LLP against Registrant of Premjiex.Com & Ors. The court granted the plaintiffs exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court allowed the filing of additional documents and formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for service and pleadings.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The parties mutually requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which the court granted pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP. The claimant was ordered to inform the court within one week after 13 February whether the case is withdrawn or will resume.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed RiVOLUTiON GmbH's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first-instance preliminary injunction order. The Local Chamber Munich had ordered RiVOLUTiON to cease offering and selling surgical instruments infringing claim 1 of EP 2 515 768 in Germany, with a penalty payment for non-compliance and a cost reimbursement of €64,000 to Cilag. The Court of Appeal held that evident errors in the first-instance order could not be established without the reasoning being available, and that the balancing of interests did not justify a stay.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI challenges Guardant Health’s 10,287,631 sequencing patent, arguing all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications, and that no FINTIV issues exist.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health’s patent on cfDNA tagging methods, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after rejecting Tempus AI’s obviousness arguments.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Foundation Medicine’s 9,340,830 cancer‑diagnostic patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and next‑generation sequencing.
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.