IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 78 of 189 · 5,670 total
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for patent 12070691 (ImagineAR), finding that Niantic failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2025-01275, finding that Niantic failed to meet the non-discretionary standard required for proceeding.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01274 after finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were more likely than not unpatentable.
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01273 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu
Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kindwaves Healthcare Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs favoring the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory of all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark 'KINDWAVES' at the defendant's premises. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the matter, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation and granted exemption from advance service, allowing the suit to proceed swiftly.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to consolidate two related commercial suits, CS(COMM) 569/2025 and CS(COMM) 130/2025. Furthermore, the court issued detailed directions requiring the defendant to file extensive documentation, including three years of accounts, Income Tax Returns, and agreements pertaining to the trademark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD'. This order sets the stage for a deeper factual examination regarding the alleged trademark usage.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided judgment text contains only the digital signatures of the presiding judges and the date of signing (July 12, 2025), with no substantive content regarding the facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome of the case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its Micron affiliates successfully challenged Netlist's 8,787,060 B2 memory‑package patent. The PTAB found all 34 claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent were obvious over Harris and JEDEC FBDIMM standards, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’215 memory‑module patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all 29 claims unpatentable as obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over Ellsberry and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent in a PGR, resulting in all 20 claims being held unpatentable for obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR institution after the ITC found the challenged claims valid and commercially successful, resulting in a stay of the IPR pending further opinion.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the Netlist ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory claims are obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection, rendering all 30 claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a memorandum stating that panels will now decide all petition‑raised grounds in a single final written decision for PGRs and IPRs without an oral hearing, aiming for more efficient resolutions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs involving Netlist patents, leaving the PTAB’s rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 patent are obvious over prior art combining Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, and therefore unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.
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.