IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 76 of 189 · 5,670 total
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Samsung Electronics France S.A.S. (EP 2 839 403)
The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) requested a three-week extension of time periods for filing their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and their reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, seeking a deadline of 11 August 2025. The claimant (Fingon LLC) opposed the request. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for additional time to analyze new technical arguments and obtain information from a third-party developer and their private expert.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Ex Parte
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Husqvarna AB
POSITEC Germany GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Husqvarna AB before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 3978304 was granted). Husqvarna opposed the application, arguing that POSITEC, as a German company operating the EMEA headquarters, should be able to handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the position of the defendant prevailed in the balancing of interests.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.
Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
BioNTech SE and Others v.Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected MAGUIN SAS's appeal against an order of the Paris Local Division that had refused to revoke an ex parte order for evidence preservation and site inspection. The court upheld the principle that evidence preservation measures under Rules 192.3 and 197 RoP do not require the same urgency, certainty of evidence disappearance, or patent validity assessment as provisional measures, and that applicants need not disclose prior art unless special circumstances warrant it.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Milan) against Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. concerning European Patent EP2519412. During the proceedings, Pirelli and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH entered into a settlement agreement, and Pirelli requested the Court to confirm the settlement, maintain confidentiality over certain financial details, and continue the action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of the unredacted terms, and granted Pirelli a reimbursement of 30% of the total Court Fees.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND in patent infringement proceedings. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann on July 15, 2025, sets a hearing date of July 21, 2025, to be held in person, in English, and entirely in camera due to the confidential nature of the topics to be discussed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division of Paris's order rejecting VALINEA's request for revocation of an ex parte evidence preservation and site inspection order concerning European patent EP 3 178 578. The court held that the urgency assessment for evidence preservation differs from that for provisional measures, that the risk of evidence disappearance is assessed by probability rather than certainty, and that patent validity need not be assessed at the evidence preservation stage. VALINEA's appeal was rejected.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 12,115,233. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review, citing the settlement and lack of an institution decision.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’572 patent covering semiconductor interconnect fabrication. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,632,751 patent, seeking cancellation of 20 claims covering dummy‑via dual‑damascene methods. The petition relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Arla Foods amba v.Leprino Foods Company et al.
Arla Foods petitions the PTAB to invalidate Leprino Foods’ 11,825,860 patent covering denatured whey protein compositions, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several dairy‑protein references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01302, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC.
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.