IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 62 of 140 · 4,175 total
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kindwaves Healthcare Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs favoring the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory of all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark 'KINDWAVES' at the defendant's premises. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the matter, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation and granted exemption from advance service, allowing the suit to proceed swiftly.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to consolidate two related commercial suits, CS(COMM) 569/2025 and CS(COMM) 130/2025. Furthermore, the court issued detailed directions requiring the defendant to file extensive documentation, including three years of accounts, Income Tax Returns, and agreements pertaining to the trademark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD'. This order sets the stage for a deeper factual examination regarding the alleged trademark usage.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:06:47 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:09:50 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:11:2
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Peter Hendrik Blok Digitally signed by Peter Hendrik Blok Date: 2025.07.12 11:07:34 +02'00' Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:13:46 +02'00' EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Signé numériquement par EMMANUEL, LUCIEN, RENÉ GOUGÉ Date : 2025.07.12 16:14:09
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_636/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 June 2025 Applicant Centripetal Limited Galway Technology Centre, Mervue Business Park, 7XPF+6C Galway, Ireland represented by: Dr Ralph Nack, Dr Nic
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs involving Netlist patents, leaving the PTAB’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent unpatentable. Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the claims were obvious over a combination of Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck. The Board’s reasoning hinged on motivation‑to‑combine and claim construction of “memory module.”
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the Board finding the claims obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 9,235,428 before the Board institutes the case, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and dismissal would save resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving Sinclair Pharma and others versus Hydrafacial, staying the proceeding after the ITC affirmed the claims’ validity and commercial success.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2026‑00018 the PTAB held that Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 memory‑package patent obvious over a combination of Kim, Rajan, Riho and Wyman. The Board adopted the district‑court claim constructions and rejected Netlist’s arguments about non‑DRAM limitations and collision risks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck. All 30 challenged claims were declared unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
A PTAB memorandum issued on July 29, 2025 instructs panels to resolve all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for IPR and PGR cases lacking an oral hearing, aiming for streamlined rulings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition challenging Netlist’s 12,373,366 DIMM patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over older memory‑module art. The petition seeks cancellation of all 38 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Ricky Rubber Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Ricky Rubber Industries challenging the Trade Marks Registry's rejection of an application for rectification. The petitioner sought to correct a minor typographical error—a wrong registration number—in a recordal form (FORM TM-P). The court ruled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to dilute substantive rights, directing the Registrar to accept the rectification application and make the necessary amendments.
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.