IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 68 of 189 · 5,670 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Following a merits decision in favor of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning patent EP2145848, Oerlikon sought rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of a costs decision that had awarded €80,000.00 in reimbursable costs. Oerlikon argued that an additional €20,000.00 for the merits phase should have been added to reach a total of €100,000.00. The Court rejected the application, finding that the €80,000.00 figure was consistent throughout both the operative part and the reasoning of the costs decision, and that the contested phrase was merely a typographical error that did not affect the overall calculation.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter, LLC challenges Yondr’s ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over earlier locking‑case references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a PTAB petition seeking cancellation of Yondr’s lockable‑case patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over earlier security‑case publications. The petition lists seven claims and three statutory grounds.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter and Yondr settled their post‑grant review dispute over patent 12,133,078. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01187, allowing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. to proceed against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11057896.
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company v.Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed a multi-pronged order in the trademark dispute between M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company and Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff's request for exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, allowing the case to proceed directly. Simultaneously, it set dates for filing replies regarding the defendant's application for trademark rectification and the plaintiff's interim injunction request, moving the core dispute towards active litigation.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited v.M/S Hotel Hilton
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'HILTON' brand, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on July 29, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption regarding document translation while simultaneously facilitating a resolution through mandatory mediation. Crucially, the defendants stated their willingness to cease using the disputed trademark, leading the court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre and adjourn further proceedings pending its outcome.
M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Al Kareem
In a dispute over trademark similarity, the Madras High Court addressed M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking rectification of Al Kareem's mark 'AL Kareem'. Despite the petitioner asserting long-standing goodwill and deceptive similarity, the court ultimately favored the respondent. The judgment recognized the existing use of 'AL Kareem' in Hyderabad but imposed a crucial geographical limitation on its registration to prevent confusion outside that specific region.
Thumbtack Inc. v.Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Thumbtack Inc. against Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's mark 'THUMBSUP' is a deliberate and mala fide imitation of Thumbtack’s registered trademark, 'THUMBTACK.' The court noted the triple identity—identical mark, identical product category (home services), and identical consumer base—and restrained the Defendants from using any deceptively similar marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Both parties agreed on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation should be heard together. The Court scheduled an interim conference for 22 January 2026 and an oral hearing for 25 March 2026.
[Claimant name redacted] v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was brought before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 875 923 B1, owned by Essetre Holding spa, which relates to a machine for machining walls. The claimant alleged lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art documents. The defendant submitted a principal request to amend the patent, which the court found admissible and compliant with the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, and Roborock International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants requested extensions of deadlines for filing their opposition, statement of defense, and counterclaim for revocation, with the claimant's consent. The presiding judge granted the extensions, setting the opposition deadline to August 26, 2025, and the defense/counterclaim deadlines to October 27, 2025.
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.