IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 69 of 189 · 5,670 total
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’801 patent covering SSD metadata and maintenance functions. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an Appeal under Section 117A(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 26.12.2024 which rejected its patent application (No. 202211027823). The court also disposed of applications regarding exemption and condoned a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal.
Diya Aggarwal v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Diya Aggarwal has filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register her trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and set out a procedural schedule for the matter. This order directs both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders, indicating that the case is moving forward through the appellate process.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Eco Tech Recycling & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Eco Tech Recycling & Ors. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, ruling that the defendants' actions—specifically reintroducing scrapped or disposed products into the market—posed grave harm to the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff's registered trademarks (including PURPLLE) and copyrights. This protective order aims to safeguard consumer trust and prevent further unauthorized commercial activity related to the plaintiffs' intellectual property.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.
Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt Ltd v.Urmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Seoul Viosys following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 2661892. The Paris Central Division had previously ordered the transfer of the revocation action to the Paris Local Division and directed Photon Wave to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys' legal costs for the preliminary objection proceedings. The Court held the application admissible but only partly well-founded, setting the value of the preliminary objection proceedings at one quarter of the revocation action's value (EUR 500,000) and rejecting the expert costs claim, ultimately ordering Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with a saisie (evidence preservation) order at Palo Alto's Munich office in connection with European Patent EP 3 281 580. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Palo Alto had no obligation to increase access rights for sales personnel or to set up technical systems not physically present at the premises, as the inspection order was limited to items found at the specified location.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a costs procedure decision from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimants sought €92,814.62 in costs following a successful infringement action, but the court awarded only €41,656.64, applying the standard ceiling of €38,000 for representation costs due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court addressed key issues including the timeliness of requests to increase the cost ceiling, the burden of proof for claimed costs, and the scope of recoverable representation costs.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear TRUMPF's infringement action and IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to allow a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel for both validity and infringement questions.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR against the ’013 single‑cell sequencing patent resulted in the Board finding all 28 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior publications by Linnarsson and McCloskey. The petition’s obviousness arguments were accepted and the patent owner’s defenses were rejected.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR resulted in all 28 claims of the 10,697,013 B1 patent being held unpatentable for obviousness over prior‑art tagging methods. The Board affirmed the petitioner’s combination of Linnarsson and McCloskey references.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB found Samsung’s challenge successful for 11 of the 15 claims of Maxell’s ’815 patent, deeming them obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while four claims remained upheld.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung’s inter partes review of Maxell’s 11,017,815 B2 video‑profile patent ended with the PTAB finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable, preserving Samsung’s product roadmap.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Meta Platforms' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01333, leaving the original decision that the IPR was not instituted unchanged.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 27 claims of a dual‑damascene interconnect patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds for each claim group and requests the Board to institute the review.
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.