IP Cases — 2025
4,177 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 140 · 4,177 total
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant, T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., challenged demands raised by the Department regarding service tax on royalty income received for allowing group companies to use their registered logo 'TTK'. The dispute centered on whether this usage constituted a taxable Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service or was exempt under copyright law.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
Centripetal Limited, the registered and sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1 relating to Methods and Systems for Efficient Network Protection, sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of the patent in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The patent was granted and published on 29 May 2024, and the prior opt-out was withdrawn from the register on 12 July 2024. The case was heard by a panel of the Local Division Mannheim on 9 October 2025, with a decision delivered on 5 December 2025.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
The Local Division in Copenhagen issued an order regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1, partially upholding a request for penalty payments against the defendant for delayed compliance with a prior evidence preservation order. The Court found that the defendant had delayed 36 days in providing requested login information for financial systems, email accounts, and a seized computer, without presenting substantiated circumstances justifying the delay. Considering the seriousness of the breach and principles of fairness and proportionality, the Court set the penalty at EUR 2,500 per day for the first 18-day period and EUR 1,250 per day for the subsequent 18-day period, resulting in a total fine of EUR 67,500.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB
This is an order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning three related cases (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) involving patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a merits decision on 21 July 2025 in case CFI 380/2023, the parties jointly requested a stay of the cost proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal (case T-241/25-3.2.02). The Court granted the stay and also provisionally granted the parties' confidentiality requests regarding certain cost application documents.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l. and ACEF Srl
This case concerns a review of an ex parte order (inaudita altera parte) for the preservation of evidence issued by the Local Division of Milan. 3V Sigma S.p.A., the holder of two European patents relating to triazine photostabilizing compounds and UV filter cosmetic compositions, had sought evidence preservation measures against A.G.A. S.r.l. and A.C.E.F. S.r.l. The defendants challenged the ex parte order, alleging breach of the duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP and insufficiency of the evidence presented under Article 60.1 UPCA. The Court rejected these objections, clarifying the ex ante standard for assessing disclosure obligations and the threshold for 'reasonably available evidence' required to support a patent infringement claim.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et. al.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, to reopen the oral hearing in a patent infringement action against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought reopening based on post-hearing discussions with an expert who allegedly had access to the Defendants' source code in US proceedings, claiming the Defendants' representative made false statements about the absence of gateway and broker functionalities. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases arising during the oral hearing and cannot be used to introduce new infringement allegations after closure of proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a. o. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed key legal questions regarding the relevance of independent process claims and their descriptions when determining the scope of protection of independent product claims. The court also examined whether an injunction covering the making of a product can be issued when the infringing product has so far been manufactured by a third party outside the contracting member states.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Ykk Corporation v.Kc Sapra & Ors.
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Ykk Corporation against Defendant No. 3 based on an amicable agreement reached during litigation. The defendant admitted to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights (including 'YKK'), agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or counterfeit goods, and committed to handing over seized infringing products. Furthermore, the settlement included a payment of damages/costs by the defendant and established strict compliance mechanisms, including future audits.
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited, directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark 'CRISPRO'. The court found that the failure to send the mandatory renewal notice (FORM RG-3) to the Petitioner's updated address constituted a violation of statutory rules. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and mandated the timely completion of the renewal process.
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
Filmtec Corporation & Anr. v.Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
1 Milan - Central Division – Court of First Instance - UPC_CFI_1167/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rules 354.3, 262. 2 and 262A RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 4 December 2025 Applicant INSULET Co 100 Nagog Park - MA 01720 - Acton – US Massachuset
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, brought by Aesculap AG against three Shanghai Bojin-related entities. The court addressed four procedural matters: scheduling the oral hearing, the claimant's request to extend claims to include an additional product called the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party, and Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights. The court set the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, ordered the addition of the new party, and provisionally assessed the remaining requests while reserving final decisions for further deliberation.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA, Establishment Labs S.A. and PulseLavage AB
This case concerned an infringement action filed by CooperSurgical, Inc. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) regarding EP 3 302 292 B1. After the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent on 30 September 2025, the Claimant withdrew the action. The Court allowed the withdrawal and assessed the costs to be reimbursed to the Defendants, ordering the Claimant to pay €105,757.90 to Defendants 1-2 and €81,423.33 to Defendant 3, while also ordering reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimant.
BARCO NV v.1. YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and 2. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
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.