IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 68 of 140 · 4,175 total
Chandan Sadija & Vikas Nahlani v.Neeraj Jewellery & Nishant Gupta
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The petitioners argued that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as the original trademark originated outside Chhattisgarh. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that the defendants were operating within Chhattisgarh and that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their cause of action and valued the suit above the required threshold for commercial court jurisdiction.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
Acer Computer GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB for public access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings UPC_CFI_181/2024 (related to European Patent EP2661892 owned by Nokia Technologies Oy), in which HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. was the claimant and Nokia Technologies Oy was the defendant. The main proceedings had been concluded on 27 March 2025 following the withdrawal of the action. The applicant sought access to better understand how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings, arguing that such access supports professional advice by UPC representatives. The defendant Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a specific personal interest and had not sufficiently demonstrated a general interest justifying access.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon and its AWS affiliate filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against DivX’s 11,611,785 video‑streaming patent. The Board has not yet institutioned the case, and DivX does not oppose the withdrawal. The motion seeks termination of the proceeding for efficiency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited
The appeal challenges a previous judgment where the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent questioned the maintainability of this appeal.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790, filed by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as granted and through eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address the determination of the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, procedural questions regarding patent amendments, and clarification of the parties' requests.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
Solectric GmbH, DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,264,345, which claims thousands of modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
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.