IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 71 of 189 · 5,670 total
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This decision concerns cross-appeals filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) and LAMA France before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. After the Paris Local Division had found one patent invalid and the other infringed, both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court of Appeal granted the mutual withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of procedural costs to each party.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. Both parties withdrew their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement, and the court terminated the proceedings, ordering a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party without a decision on representation costs.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_18313/2025 UPC_CoA_347/2025) v.Ex Parte
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision denying his application to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had completed a CEIPI course on patent litigation in 2022 but filed his registration application on 21 February 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related circumstances did not justify re-establishment of rights.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01342 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged an order of refusal dated 30.05.2023 passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order summarily rejected the application without examining the submissions made in response to the First Examination Report (FER).
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.
Upgrid Solutions Private Limited v.Vikas Pal And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Upgrid Solutions against Vikas Pal and others. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial evidence, including GPS-tagged photographs of unauthorized swap stations and true-caller screenshots, citing the need for substantial justice. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of protecting its 'Battery Smart' brand, the Court granted an interim injunction through the appointment of Receivers to secure the plaintiff's assets and prevent further infringement.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Others
Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
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.