IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 66 of 189 · 5,670 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
N.J Diffusion SARL, a French company and holder of European patent EP 2 404 516 relating to wigs and hairpieces, brought an infringement action against German competitor Gisela Mayer GmbH before the Local Division of Paris. N.J Diffusion alleged both literal and equivalent infringement of claims 1-4 and 7-9 of the patent, seeking 300,000 euros in provisional damages. The court rejected all of N.J Diffusion's infringement claims, finding no literal or equivalent infringement, and ordered N.J Diffusion to bear all costs, with Gisela Mayer's cost claim fixed at 50,000 euros to be added to N.J Diffusion's insolvency estate following its judicial reorganization.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sinocare Inc.
This order concerns two consolidated provisional measures proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in which Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought interim relief against Menarini and Sinocare regarding the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, alleging infringement of European patents EP3988471 and EP4344633. Menarini filed Rule 9 applications seeking postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, arguing insufficient time for a fair trial. The court dismissed the applications as unfounded, finding no special circumstances warranting postponement, and confirmed the oral hearing date while setting deadlines for the filing of Objections.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH, WhiteWater Era GmbH, WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
Astellas Pharma Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astellas Pharma Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of its Indian Patent No. 292990 by Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and others. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants 8 and 9 to cease marketing and listing of the infringing product GILTERNIB.
Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited
Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
Ntn Corporation v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ntn Corporation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the registration of the trade mark 'NTW'. The court held that despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity between 'NTN' and 'NTW', the marks were not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the court rejected the appellant's claims of prior use, concluding that the difference in letters ('W' vs 'N') was sufficient to distinguish the two trademarks.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.M/S Hilton Cloud Resort
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against M/S Hilton Cloud Resort, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using the name 'HILTON CLOUD RESORT' or any confusingly similar mark while also granting four weeks to remove all listings and usage of the impugned mark across various platforms. This order sets the stage for the full trial, establishing immediate protection for the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers Private Limited v.Triveniprime Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by Triveni Household Items Manufacturers against Triveniprime Industries Private Limited concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions regarding its trademarks, 'TRIVENI' and 'TRIVENI ALMIRAH'. While the court granted procedural reliefs such as extensions for filing fees and leave to file additional documents, it also directed that the matter proceed with an interim injunction hearing on August 20, 2025.
Ozone Overseas Private Limited v.Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Hardware Solutions & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Ozone Overseas Private Limited, a leading global provider of architectural hardware. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants, recognizing the urgency of seeking an ad interim injunction. Crucially, the court allowed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct searches and seizures at the defendant's premises, ensuring evidence preservation in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Novartis AG v.Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This is a decision on costs before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerning Novartis AG's claim for legal cost compensation following the dismissal of Zentiva's application to intervene in related proceedings. Novartis claimed €38,000 in costs but failed to adequately substantiate the proportionality and reasonableness of hiring five law firms to defend against a single intervention application. The court awarded only €3,000, the amount undisputed by Zentiva, finding that Novartis had not met its burden of proof under Rule 156.1 RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA filed a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 876 490 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. After the interim conference and the suspension of the oral hearing, the proceedings were stayed, and Toyota subsequently applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees (EUR 4,000) to Toyota, finding that the withdrawal occurred before the closure of the oral procedure under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
The document is a January 14, 2021 notice of termination of agreement submitted as an exhibit in IPR2025-01366 between Fresh Products, LLC and Sanastar, Inc. The termination suggests the parties may have settled the dispute.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of VB Assets’ ’025 patent covering voice‑driven song dedication, arguing the claims are obvious over existing speech‑interface and music‑dedication technologies.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited v.Miniso Life Style Private Limited
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.
Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/S Parul Food Products v.Mr. Dhruv Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petitions filed by M/s Parul Food Products against Mr. Dhruv Singh, cancelling two registered trade marks ('FUNSHINE' and a Device Mark) in Class 30. The court found that these Impugned Marks were deceptively and identically similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'FUNFINE'. Given the Petitioner's prior use since 2005 compared to the Respondent's registration date of 2017, the judgment reinforced the principle that a prior user's rights supersede subsequent registrations when likelihood of confusion exists.
Renault SAS (Application for Access to Court File under Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Renault SAS applied for access to the court file and register of proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement and which had been terminated. The court granted Renault access to the specified pleadings and evidence in redacted form, balancing Renault's interest as a member of the public against the parties' confidentiality interests, but excluded court decisions and orders from the scope of access.
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.