IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 189 · 5,670 total
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
J S F Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Registar Of Trade Marks And Gi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court successfully mediated and settled disputes concerning trademark opposition appeals. Following a successful settlement agreement, the court disposed of the appeals and decreed the underlying suit based on the mutually agreed-upon terms. This judgment highlights the effectiveness of judicial mediation in resolving complex IP conflicts efficiently, allowing parties to achieve tailored resolutions rather than proceeding through lengthy litigation.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH & Others
This is an interim conference order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer supply container for a developer receiving apparatus. The order addresses various procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing, including translations, feature breakdowns of the patent claims, deadlines for submissions, and the course of the oral hearing. The Defendants agreed to drop their contestation of service on Defendant 3, and the Court set deadlines for translations and cost estimates by 18 December 2025.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 061 575 B1, directed at a device for continuous filtering of impurities from a plastic melt. The claimant, a licensee of the patent, attacked plastic cleaning devices (LDF 300 and LDF 500 models) and replacement disc filters manufactured by the defendant. The court partially upheld the infringement claim while dismissing the revocation counterclaim, thereby maintaining the patent in its entirety.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, and HyGear B.V.
Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant access to an electrically heated hydrogen production plant bearing the inscription 'www.hygear.com' on its outer wall, including the opening of the reactor, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2061230. The court dismissed Samsung's request to extend the deadline for filing its rejoinder/reply submissions and admitted Maxell's 44 auxiliary requests into the proceedings. The court found the number of auxiliary requests reasonable given the large number of invalidity attacks asserted by Samsung and the manageable number of new features actually introduced.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. During the proceedings, the defendant stated that they have not commercialized any infringing product and their activities are covered under Section 107-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
Neon Laboratories Limited v.Vishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
S Birpal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As Pawandeep Singh and Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the procedural form of a petition seeking cancellation of four registered trademarks (AKALI PATRIKA). The respondent argued that Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires separate petitions for each mark. The petitioner countered, offering to deposit additional court fees or file multiple petitions. The Court found the petitioner's suggestions reasonable and directed the respondent to take instructions before listing the matter again.
Spyra v.Amycel LLC (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
The defendant, Spyra, filed an application under Rule 356 to set aside a decision by default issued against him in an infringement action brought by Amycel LLC concerning European patent EP 1 993 350 B2. The Court held that the application was inadmissible because the defendant had been put on notice in earlier orders (the R.275-Order and the R.320-Order) that a further decision by default would be final, and the same panel assessing the same factual and legal situation would not reach a different outcome. The Court rectified the default decision ex officio under Rule 353 to indicate that the proper legal remedy was an appeal within two months, not a Rule 356 application.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
This is an appeal from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the infringement of European Patent EP 2 145 848 relating to false twist texturizing machinery. Oerlikon sued Bhagat for exhibiting an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance's provisional damages award of €15,000 for reputational harm, finding the evidence insufficient, but otherwise upheld the finding of infringement and the cost allocation against Bhagat.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
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.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
RJ Brands (Chefman) has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition targets claims 1‑4 and 7‑22 and seeks to have them declared unpatentable.
Apotex Inc. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
Apotex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s 2017 pancreatic‑cancer treatment patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a body of prior‑art that teaches the same drug regimen.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
RJ Brands has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Zhang, Conrad, Philips and Moon.
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.
Apotex Inc. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR involving Apotex Inc. and Ipsen Biopharm Ltd., allowing the merits of the challenge to proceed.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01530 and several other proceedings after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This moves the cases forward to merits 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.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01524 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This allows the proceeding to move forward to merits review.
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.