IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 65 of 189 · 5,670 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under federal rules.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board granted a joint request to treat settlement agreements as business‑confidential and terminated the IPRs for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light after the parties settled. Remaining petitioners’ IPRs continue.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
A joint settlement between WEC Energy Group and BirchTech has prompted a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,926,218. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317 to dismiss WEC from the proceeding before any merits decision. The Board must now decide whether to grant the termination.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a mercury removal patent (10926218) after the Director remanded the case due to multiple concurrent petitions. The denial was based on following the Director's instruction to prioritize one petition over another.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against MES, Inc.'s patent (10926218) regarding pollutant removal from flue gas. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation and obviousness grounds based on multiple prior art references.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of multiple IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp., vacating prior institution decisions. The Board is now remanded to determine which single petition, out of two filed per patent, should be instituted.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp successfully challenged 26 claims of Birchtech Corp.'s patent (10926218) related to flue gas desulfurization, leading the PTAB to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board concluded that combining prior art references was an obvious application of known techniques in mercury removal technology.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims against Birchtech Corp.'s patent. The grounds for unpatentability centered on obviousness (103) based on combining prior art related to pollutant removal from flue gas.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in an IPR case, vacating the initial rulings and remanding the matter to the Board. The decision addressed the issue of multiple petitions challenging a single patent.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Gurjinder Kaur & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition filed under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued directions to issue notices to all parties involved in the trademark matter. Furthermore, separate applications seeking interim relief (under CPC) were also addressed by setting timelines for filing replies and listing the matters before the Joint Registrar and the Court.
Nilkamal Crates And Containers & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Nilkamal Crates And Containers after a settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 5. The settlement confirmed Nilkamal's ownership of its well-known 'NILKAMAL' trademark and required Defendant No. 5 to cease all activities related to manufacturing or trading deceptively similar goods, such as mattresses. Furthermore, Defendant No. 5 agreed to pay damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in a trademark opposition case filed by Bajaj Auto Limited against M/S Transworld Enterprises & Anr. The court directed that notice be served to all parties, allowing four weeks for filing replies and rejoinders. The matter was subsequently scheduled for listing before the Joint Registrar (J) on September 9, 2025, and then before the Court again on November 19, 2025.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a Rectification Petition filed by M/S Prakash Pipes Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition sought the cancellation and removal of the trade mark 'PARKASHPOWER' (Registration No. 4798175) from the register. With no objection from certain respondents, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed, thereby rectifying the trademark registry.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.S. Tejinder Pal Singh & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited. The court issued directions to serve notices on the respective respondents, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders. Both the main opposition case and associated interim applications were listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.Manpreet Gogia & Ors.
Bajaj Auto Limited filed a petition under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, initiating trademark opposition proceedings against certain respondents. The Delhi High Court issued directions to serve notices on all parties and set specific dates for the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar and subsequently before the Court. This order marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge regarding the trademark rights.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 RoP for a further written pleading, holding that the front-loaded procedure under the Rules of Procedure does not permit the introduction of new infringement readings at this stage of the proceedings.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
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.