IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 61 of 140 · 4,175 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,632,751 patent, seeking cancellation of 20 claims covering dummy‑via dual‑damascene methods. The petition relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01302, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC.
Valary Lab Private Ltd v.G1 Therapeutics Inc & Anr.
The petitioner, Valary Lab Private Ltd, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 434029 and an injunction against threats related to its alleged infringement. The court allowed applications for additional documents and granted notice to all parties. The case is set for re-notification on November 12, 2025.
Elofic Industries Limited v.Mobis India Limited
The Delhi High Court consolidated two commercial suits (CS(COMM) 17/2016 and CS(COMM) 363/2018) involving Elofic Industries Limited and Mahle Filter Systems India Private Limited versus Mobis India Limited. The court proceeded to frame detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the plaintiff's use of the defendant's trademarks qualifies as 'honest use' under Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further issues addressed the maintainability of the suit and the possibility of granting permanent injunction against criminal complaints.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected its application for a patent related to aripiprazole microspheres. The core contention raised by Otsuka was that the rejection order lacked any reasoned justification, failing to discuss the invention or adequately address prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The Calcutta High Court agreed with this assessment, finding the impugned order unreasoned and unsustainable.
Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning trademark oppositions, where Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite pending proceedings. The court recognized that the delay in disposal was unjustified given the history of the applications and oppositions. Consequently, the High Court issued a mandate directing the Registrar of Trademarks to conclude both opposition cases within a strict three-month timeframe.
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to compel the Registrar of Trademarks to decide an opposition petition and trademark application within a fixed timeframe. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition because the underlying matter had already been decided by the Trademark Office on July 9, 2025, rendering the petitioner's request moot.
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
Google Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Google LLC challenging the refusal to register its trademark 'OUTLINE'. The core issue involved potential conflicts with existing trademarks. Recognizing that two pending rectification petitions, which directly impacted the dispute, were lodged in different registries (Chennai and Ahmedabad), the court took a procedural step. It directed the transfer of these two related rectification petitions to the High Court for consolidation with the main appeal, ensuring a unified adjudication of all interconnected trademark matters.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Respondent
1 di 5 Divisione Locale di Milano UPC CFI n. 770/2024 Act. n. 64425/2024 App. n. 26266/2025 ordinanza n. 26742/2025 depositata il 14.7.2025 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. CONVENUTI 1) Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd. 2) China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automot
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interlocutory hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000, reserved the decision on the admissibility of a particular annex for the oral hearing, and scheduled the oral hearing for October 16, 2025. The order also addressed procedural matters regarding patent amendment requests and the applicable cost ceiling.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01289 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public policy and efficiency reasons for early termination.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Regeneron defends the PTAB’s discretionary denial of Fresenius’s request to review the denial of institution for an IPR targeting its aflibercept biosimilar patent. The response argues that Fresenius ignored the controlling Fintiv factors, misapplied settled‑expectations, and raised meritless constitutional claims.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Regeneron’s biosimilar patent. The petition argues the Board’s “settled expectations” rule and discretionary denial are unlawful and harm drug‑price competition.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court decision.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’249 patent covering packet‑forwarding nodes. The petition relies on the Shimizu patent application and the BGP‑4 standard (RFC‑4271) as prior art to argue obviousness.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Cloud Byte’s cooling‑structure patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of inter‑ partes review and cancellation of the claims.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate nine claims of Cloud Byte’s ‘632 patent covering server‑cooling abnormality detection. The petition relies on the combination of two prior‑art references, Hira and Shiga, to argue obviousness.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SoundClear’s 11,244,675 patent covering voice‑controlled content generation. The petition asserts obviousness over Raitio/Fahlman and Ocampo/Fahlman combinations for claims 1‑7.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’177 patent covering network flow tracing. The petition relies on obviousness over Rijhsinghani and combinations with RFC‑5474, Lean, and a networking textbook.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827, which covers location‑based virtual gameplay. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over the Kolo and Zyda references under 35 U.S.C. §103 and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu
Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
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.