IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 65 of 140 · 4,175 total
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.
Chet Chamnitiravanich v.Organovedics Through Its Partners Ms. Sonia and Mr. Nitin Gangadhar and Ors
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief to the plaintiff, Chet Chamnitiravanich. The court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory and seize counterfeit 'MENA' soap products being manufactured and exported by the defendants. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of stopping counterfeiting, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory advance service requirements against key defendants.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,077,791 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts that the claims are overly broad and lack both written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Merck seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of all claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sandpiper CDN’s 8,595,778 patent covering video‑stream authorization, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Xiaomi for allegedly infringing their patented technology, 'A Communication Device Finder System', which is listed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court dismissed both applications for interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of infringement and noting an inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. v.Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. was infringing its patent related to textile machinery. The suit sought an injunction, based on products being imported and used in Pune, Maharashtra. However, the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the Bombay High Court's purview. Consequently, the court allowed the application for return of the plaint, dismissing the amendment request as well.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
M/S Swagath v.Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.
Staar Surgical Company v.Jagrat Natvar Dave Trading As Polymer Technologies International & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a rectification application filed by Staar Surgical Company against the trademark 'IPC L' under No. 2511431. The court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Registry to serve notice, the applicant failed to appear or ensure proper service of process. Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of prosecution, though the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the case if difficulties are overcome.
Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Munich issued an order on a procedural application by the Renault Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action based on European Patent EP3726780. The Renault entities argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used for reasons of fairness. The Claimant, Avago Technologies, opposed the application. The order was issued pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with the President providing a headnote on the assessment of language change applications.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' brief dated June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing the temporary unavailability of the case management system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The defendants consented to the extension. The presiding judge rejected the request, holding that there was no legal interest in granting it because Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure already provides for an automatic extension of time in cases of temporary CMS unavailability.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an application for reimbursement of court fees following the settlement of an appeal in a patent revocation action. Tandem Diabetes had filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes regarding EP 2 196 231, which was dismissed by the Central Division Paris. After the parties settled, Tandem Diabetes sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that, since the written procedure had not been closed at the time of settlement, Tandem Diabetes was entitled to a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees.
Appellant*** v.ORTHOAPNEA S.L., VIVISOL B BV
1 Beslissing van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht betreffende een verzoek tot intrekking van het beroep uitgesproken op 3 juli 2025 INHOUDSINDICATIE De begroting van de te vergoeden proceskosten na de intrekking van een vordering of beroep is overeenkomstig R. 2
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff Headwater Research LLC, asserting infringement of European Patent EP 3 110 072, sought security for costs from the defendants, while the defendants (Motorola entities and Flextronics) sought security from the plaintiff in connection with their counterclaims for revocation. The court held that even though a defendant in an infringement suit is formally the claimant in a revocation counterclaim, they may under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP demand security for the costs incurred or to be incurred through that counterclaim, as otherwise the defendant would be unreasonably restricted in their defense.
Advanced Bionics AG v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This case concerns an appeal by Tiroler Rohre GmbH against a cost assessment order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning EP 2 839 083. Tiroler Rohre had applied for provisional measures against SSAB but withdrew the application after the court indicated concerns during the oral hearing. The Local Division ordered Tiroler Rohre to pay costs, and SSAB subsequently sought detailed cost assessment. Tiroler Rohre appealed, arguing that a separate cost assessment procedure was inadmissible because the cost decision had already been made together with the withdrawal decision under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics GmbH v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
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.