IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 67 of 140 · 4,175 total
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., ESTHETEC SAS, Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l.
Quantificare S.A. brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 against five defendants, who in turn filed a revocation counterclaim. The Chamber addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs combined infringement and revocation proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Chamber ordered a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), and instructed the Rapporteur to request the assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Gunwal Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Gunwal Sports concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The court recognized the public interest risk associated with consumer deception regarding the 'HERO' brand merchandise. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without pre-litigation mediation or advance service, enabling the immediate appointment of a Local Commissioner for search and seizure of evidence.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Sunil Gupta
New Balance Athletics Inc. successfully secured several critical preliminary orders in its suit against Sunil Gupta regarding trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing immediate legal action. Crucially, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEW BLANCO' and 'BALANCE'. Furthermore, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence and counterfeit products at the defendant's premises.
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V., *** v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl
YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.
products and ideas india pvt ltd v.nilkamal limited
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Nilkamal Limited and others for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the 'STELLA' mark on induction cooktops, despite having a license to use 'STELLADEXIN'. The plaintiff claimed prior registration and significant sales under the 'STELLADEXIN' mark.
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.