IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 70 of 189 · 5,670 total
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’897 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based exploit prediction.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The PTAB denied Guardant Health's IPR challenge against Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01307 involving Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited appealed the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently obtained registrations for ceiling fans that infringed upon Atomberg's registered design (No. 309694). The dispute also involved claims of passing off due to similarity in aesthetic features and market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'. The dispute also involved claims of passing off, given Atomberg's established market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order that refused to grant an interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied its registered ceiling fan design, 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan,' and committed passing off. The court examined the comparison between the two designs and found that prima facie differences existed in various aspects of the products and packaging. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed Atomberg's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Jaishankar
The plaintiff, Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., claimed that its registered trademark 'HANS CHAAP' was being infringed and passed off by the defendants in relation to tobacco products. Despite initial interim injunctions, the suit proceeded despite non-appearance of several defendants. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants 2 to 5 and awarding costs.
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
The petition challenges the action of Respondent No.1 (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) for accepting a Counter Statement filed by Respondent No.2 beyond the statutory two-month period stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that the matter would be heard ex-parte against Respondent No.2 due to non-appearance despite service.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Upgrad Education Private Limited v.Lavangiri Ansar Basha And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Upgrad Education Private Limited against Lavangiri Ansar Basha and others. The court found that the defendant was actively making false, malicious, and disparaging statements about the plaintiff's brand 'upGrad' on social media platforms, including using the trademark with derogatory hashtags like 'scam' and 'fraud'. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from further defamatory posts until the next hearing, while the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_28067/2025, UPC_CoA_521/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 27 March 2025, relying on a certificate from an Italian patent litigation course completed at Politecnico Milano. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the transitional period is not subject to extension or exception, and that the clerical error and equity arguments did not justify re-establishment of rights.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
Hanshow Germany GmbH filed a nullity action against EP 3 883 277 before the Central Division (Paris) of the Unified Patent Court, which it subsequently withdrew. After the Central Division ordered Hanshow to bear the court costs, Hanshow appealed that cost decision. Before the Court of Appeal, Hanshow then withdrew its appeal and requested 60% reimbursement of its procedural costs under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, to which VusionGroup consented. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the 60% reimbursement.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on July 24, 2025, concerning European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants (Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC) requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own expense to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge granted permission for the interpreters to participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the courtroom, but otherwise rejected the application.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (Petition for Review APL_15506/2025)
The applicant sought entry on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a CEIPI diploma in 'Patent Litigation in Europe' obtained in July 2022. The Registrar rejected the application as filed out of time, and the applicant petitioned for review, arguing there was 'de facto continuity' between the unaccredited course under Rule 12 EPLC Rules and the later-accredited course under Rule 1. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the petition, holding that no such continuity exists and that the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 had expired before the application was filed.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Others
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_32076/2025, UPC_CoA_614/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a certificate from Politecnico di Milano. The Registrar rejected the application because it was filed after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, holding that the transitional period governs when the application for registration must be filed, not merely when the qualification was obtained, and that the period is not subject to extension or re-establishment of rights.
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.