IP Cases — 2025
4,177 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 140 · 4,177 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc. a. o.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities concerning European Patent EP 3 107 243 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim for revocation, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs and requesting reimbursement of 60% of court fees. The Düsseldorf Local Division allowed the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against AutoConnect’s ’186 patent, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics partnership and AutoConnect’s maintenance‑fee lapses.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. faces a PTAB Director Review petition after the Board instituted an IPR on AutoConnect’s infotainment patent. The patent owner argues Ford’s settled‑expectations narrative and claim‑construction positions are inconsistent, warranting discretionary denial of institution.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Intellectual Ventures’ LTE‑related patent, alleging obviousness over multiple pre‑grant references. The petition cites Papasakellariou, Classon, Liu, Muharemovic, and Onggosanusi as prior art.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent No. 9,123,186, which covers vehicle‑access control based on user accounts. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over earlier automotive restriction systems (Gratz, Bosch, Rector, Moinzadeh). The Board is asked to institute the review.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01529 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional decisions affecting multiple related proceedings.
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order regarding Patent application no. 201621004267. The petitioner asserted that mandatory procedures under Section 25(1) were not followed and the certificate of grant had not been issued despite filing a pre-grant opposition.
Dabur India Limited v.Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160) in favor of Dabur India Limited, who challenged the mark's validity. Dabur successfully established a prima facie case based on its long-standing use and reputation of the core mark 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930. The court found that the Impugned Mark completely subsumes the Petitioner's mark, creating an irrefutable likelihood of confusion and deception in the market.
M/S Loreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Others
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark 'LOREN BORORICH.' The sole ground for the petition was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide use of the trademark in relation to Class 3 goods for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use and the respondent's failure to provide evidence, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed from the register.
M/S. Loreal v.Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Rameshwar Prasad & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pidilite Industries Limited. The court condoned delays in filing replications for certain defendants. Crucially, while some parties proceeded toward trial, other defendants (18, 19, 20, and 21) were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, reflecting a judicial push towards alternative dispute resolution in complex IP litigation.
M/S L Oreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Ors
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S L Oreal seeking the cancellation of a similar mark, 'LOREN BOROHERB,' registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted evidence of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned registration be removed from the register, reinforcing the importance of active commercial use for maintaining a trademark.
Marico Limited v.Minolta Natural Care
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.
CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; v.1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2025-12-08) under reference UPC_F79CEE4A6A, CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; appeared in dispute with 1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; v.1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Luca Trevisan, Giulia Affer and Lorenzo Battarino, at Trevis
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2025-12-08) under reference UPC_B68B2EF17F, CARDO SYSTEMS, LTD., s.r.l., via Porlezza n. 12, 20123 - Milan, Italy; appeared in dispute with 1) SHENZHEN ZIWU CHUANGXIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Luca Trevisan, Giulia Affer and Lorenzo Battarino, at Trevis concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied OneSource Solutions' request for Director Review of the denial to institute a PGR against Hippocratic AI's patent 12,142,371. The original institution denial therefore remains in effect.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OneSource Solutions requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its challenge to Hippocratic AI’s AI‑LLM patent. The petition focuses on structural and indefiniteness deficiencies in Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b).
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied OneSource Solutions’ request for director review of its denied PGR petition against Hippocratic AI’s U.S. Patent 12,142,371. The Board found the request failed to meet the statutory standards for reversal.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OSSI Corporation filed a motion to correct procedural defects in its petition against Hippocratic AI's patent, seeking Board approval to submit a compliant filing.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed petitions seeking the revocation or removal of Indian Patents Nos. 356246 and 397206 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that these patents are part of Respondent No. 1's H.265/HEVC patent portfolio, and accordingly listed the petitions for further hearing.
S Chand And Company Ltd v.Kaushal Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by S Chand And Company Ltd against various booksellers and e-commerce platforms. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court issued an ad interim injunction directing Defendant No. 5 (Flipkart) to immediately take down listings of counterfeit books infringing on S Chand's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. Furthermore, the court provided procedural directions for serving summons and verifying the addresses of the various defendants.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the appeal filed by Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court disposed of an application seeking exemption from filing certain documents, directing that certified copies of illegible materials be submitted within four weeks. The main appeal petition, challenging a prior order by the Trademark Registrar, was subsequently listed for further hearing on January 15, 2026.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
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.