IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 67 of 189 · 5,670 total
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order threatening the respondent with coercive fines of up to EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance with a prior information disclosure order. The applicant, Aesculap AG, had obtained an order on July 10, 2025 against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, and subsequently notified its intention to enforce the order in full, requesting the respondent to provide information within one month.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information, separate from the public patent file.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power’s generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings as to those parties. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA's automobile insurance patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,159,310 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties argue that termination aligns with statutory policy and practice.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power have settled their IPR dispute over a generator fuel regulator patent. They jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access and notify the parties of any third‑party requests.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,529,029, alleging obviousness over the Gross, Davis, and Furukawa references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,650,285, arguing the claims are obvious over the Gross publication (and Gross + Davis for claim 8) under §103. The petition includes an expert declaration supporting unpatentability.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01367, allowing Albany International Corp. to challenge Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Prajna Generics Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds and their uses. The Court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises, obtain accounts, and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, owners/licensees of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering Ruxolitinib compounds (used in treating Mye), filed a suit against Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize samples of the infringing drug, and gather evidence.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr. v.Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
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.