IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 189 · 5,670 total
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Procedural order of the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant requested reopening of the oral hearing after its closure, alleging that the Defendants' representative made false statements during the hearing regarding the lack of gateway and broker functionalities in the source code of the attacked embodiment. The Court rejected the request, holding that Rule 114 RoP is reserved for exceptional cases and cannot be used to present new infringement allegations after closure of the oral hearing.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. & Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted provisional measures in favor of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1, which protects an implantable sandwich sensor for determining analyte concentration. The dispute concerned the CGM system 'GlucoMen iCan o3' manufactured in China by Changsha Sinocare Inc. and distributed in Europe by the Menarini defendants. The court issued an injunction, ordered delivery up of infringing products, information disclosure, and cost reimbursement.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on a video‑compression patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director’s discretion was proper and that statutory and procedural challenges were untenable.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ decoding patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, APA breaches, and improper reliance on rescinded guidance.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR on a video‑coding patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the denial was proper and requested the review be denied.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ patent 8,090,025, arguing procedural errors and improper discretionary denial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of three IPRs against Advanced Coding Technologies, leaving the original denials intact.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three related IPRs, leaving the original institution denials in place.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution based on General Plastic and Fintiv factors.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz seeks to invalidate all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,352,020, alleging they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. v.BRIGHTEX BIO-PHOTONICS, LLC
L'Oreal seeks IPR on Brightex’s 2017 cosmetic‑recommendation patent, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over Bandic, Rubinstenn103 and Rubinstenn300 references.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant, T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., challenged demands raised by the Department regarding service tax on royalty income received for allowing group companies to use their registered logo 'TTK'. The dispute centered on whether this usage constituted a taxable Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service or was exempt under copyright law.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Ykk Corporation v.Kc Sapra & Ors.
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Ykk Corporation against Defendant No. 3 based on an amicable agreement reached during litigation. The defendant admitted to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights (including 'YKK'), agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or counterfeit goods, and committed to handing over seized infringing products. Furthermore, the settlement included a payment of damages/costs by the defendant and established strict compliance mechanisms, including future audits.
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited, directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark 'CRISPRO'. The court found that the failure to send the mandatory renewal notice (FORM RG-3) to the Petitioner's updated address constituted a violation of statutory rules. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and mandated the timely completion of the renewal process.
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
Filmtec Corporation & Anr. v.Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation applied to the Central Division Milan for the determination of penalty payments against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for alleged non-compliance with a Court of Appeal Preliminary Injunction (30 April 2025) and a Decision on the Merits (22 July 2025) concerning patent EP4201327 relating to fluid delivery devices such as insulin pumps. EOFLOW argued that the infringing products were supplied by Menarini Diagnostics under a settlement agreement with Insulet, and that the shipments occurred before the Decision on the Merits. The Court ordered EOFLOW to pay EUR 150,000 as a penalty payment and EUR 10,000 in costs.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled an oral hearing for June 17, 2026, added Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party, and proposed a consensual procedural approach regarding a request for restitutio in integrum by Defendant 1 and the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product embodiment into the proceedings.
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.