IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 74 of 140 · 4,175 total
Moneywise Finvest Limited v.Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited
Moneywise Finvest Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited regarding the use of similar marks ('STOXKART' vs 'STOCKART') in the financial services sector. While the plaintiff initially sought an urgent ex-parte injunction due to delisting from Google Play, the court noted that this issue had been resolved by the plaintiff's appeal. The court subsequently allowed various procedural applications and scheduled the matter for further consideration, allowing the suit to proceed.
Vaibhav Agarwal v.Prabhakar Kumar & Ors.
Vaibhav Agarwal, claiming ownership of the 'Haldiram' trademark, challenged the actions of the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the Corporate Debtor, Haldiram Fincap Pvt. Ltd., citing potential IP infringement. The RP argued that the name was inherent to the corporate debtor and that Form G could not be withdrawn under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing the dispute's complexity, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter for mediation, encouraging an amicable resolution between the parties.
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights
Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy v.Mr.P.Moorthy
Petitioners sought to rectify/expunge a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic work photograph of a pump assembly, arguing that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act renders it invalid because the article was already registered as a design. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Pump Assembly itself, not the photograph, was registered as a design and that the photograph did not meet the requirements of a design.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 9 June 2025 APPLICANT Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB Widenmayerstr. 47, 80538 München, Germany represented by Moritz-Melchior Bloser PART
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google petitions an IPR to invalidate 16 claims of Telcom Ventures' 11,937,172 patent covering smartphone NFC financial transactions, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Waters, White, and Smith. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and seeks institution of the review.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab and Geotab USA have filed an authorized response supporting the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Fractus's patent covering LTE Band 12 antennas. The petition asserts that Baliarda-543 anticipates all claims and that the priority document lacks written description support. The Board is urged to deny the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.
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.