IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 63 of 189 · 5,670 total
Joy Creators Llp v.Best Medicals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Joy Creators LLP against Best Medicals & Ors., based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the parties. The judgment confirms that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'JOY' trademark and grants permanent injunction relief. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement for damages and costs, leading to the court also directing the refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the multi-sports aggregator platform 'FanCode'. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds exclusive broadcast reproduction rights for various major sporting events through licensing agreements. Given the immediate and irreparable pecuniary loss caused by unauthorized streaming on rogue websites, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with blocking orders while ensuring compliance procedures were followed.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
TikTok Inc. and Bytedance Ltd, Bytedance Pte. Ltd., Bytedance Inc., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of DiStefano’s reissued ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Block, Arnold, and Arora. The petition includes a detailed claim construction for “reciprocal site.”
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Intrepid Automation’s ’301 patent covering multi‑projector DLP additive manufacturing. The petition relies on three grounds of anticipation and obviousness using prior art from Shkolnik, Sekine, and Greene.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01241 and several other proceedings, allowing the merits phase of review to proceed.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.
Energy Beverages Pvt Ltd v.Ekadanta Packaged Drinking Water and Others
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and trademark infringement against the respondents. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'CLEAR' and proprietary rights over its artistic label and bottle shape, arguing that the defendant's use of 'CLEAR GOLD' amounted to infringement and passing off.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Sidharth Jindal v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Sidharth Jindal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of his word mark application, 'BANGTAN BOYS BTS.' The court found that the initial objections raised under Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act were unsustainable. Crucially, the court overturned the rejection based on the 'proposed-to-be-used' basis, holding that this conclusion was erroneous and contrary to Section 18 of the TM Act. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for advertisement.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned a defendants' application for cost assessment of attorney fees incurred in an appeal proceeding against an order for security for costs under R. 158 RoP. The court rejected the application as inadmissible, holding that costs arising from procedural orders, including security for cost orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under R. 150 RoP but must instead be included in the overall cost assessment following the substantive decision. The court further held that, in any event, the application had become moot due to the unified cost decision rendered in the substantive decision of 06.06.2025.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A RoP to classify the breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as confidential information in cost proceedings related to EP 2 028 981. The court held that the breakdown of hours worked qualifies as confidential information protected under R. 262A RoP, as it relates to attorney-client privileged information. However, the court rejected the Applicant's request to restrict access to only the Respondents' lawyers, holding that such restriction would violate the Respondents' right to be heard under R. 262A.6 RoP.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Université de Rennes v.EPO
The patent proprietors of European patent EP3691518 appealed the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect. The rejection stemmed from an incorrect address for one of the three proprietors in the unitary effect request and a four-day delay in remedying the irregularity. The court rejected the appeal, holding that the deadline under Rule 7.3 of the Rules on Unitary Patent Protection is strict and non-extendable, and that interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP does not apply to Rule 97(1) proceedings.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs sought leave to inspect documents filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 30 CPC, which related to disclosure of turnover concerning patented PCA units. The Court constituted a Confidentiality Club to facilitate this inspection, subject to prescribed rules.
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.