IP Cases — 2025
4,177 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 140 · 4,177 total
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology's '879 patent in a PTAB decision focused on obviousness. The Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that combining prior art references would render the claims obvious, upholding the validity of the challenged technology in orthodontics.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Pratap Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.
KT&G Corporation (Xx) v.YY
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.
Akashdeep Enterprises Through Lrs & Anr v.Ella Foundation
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Akashdeep Enterprises against Ella Foundation. The suit, filed under the Trademark Act, sought protection against groundless infringement threats. The court found that the likelihood of confusion between the parties' distinct goods (household products) and services (medicine/research) was minimal. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from taking coercive steps, such as de-listing Plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms, until the final hearing.
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas v.M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds (JAKAVI®). The court passed several orders granting exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding mediation, identity masking, and advance service, while also directing the execution of Local Commissions to investigate the alleged infringement.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lucius Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 concerning Ruxolitinib Compounds. The court granted various exemptions sought by the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation, and proceeded with appointing Local Commissioners for the execution of the patent.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 223 589. The Local Division had largely upheld bellissa HAAS GmbH's infringement claims while rejecting Windhager's invalidity counterclaim. Windhager sought suspensive effect, arguing the first-instance decision contained obvious errors in its assessment of direct infringement and the dismissal of the invalidity counterclaim, and also requested a stay of the appeal proceedings pending a new invalidity action filed by LS 9 GmbH before the Central Division Milan.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/s. Salus Pharmaceutical & anr.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited filed a commercial appeal against an order, seeking condonation of delay due to initial incorrect nomenclature. The court allowed the delay condonation, noting that procedural rules are handmaids of justice. Subsequently, the court set aside a single judge's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits, emphasizing continuous infringement.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court allowed the commercial suit filed by XX against Y, which alleges infringement of trademarks and designs related to 'HERO Genuine engine oil.' The court granted several procedural reliefs, including masking party identities and exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, seize infringing stock, and ascertain its value, paving the way for immediate interim protection.
Ganraj Enterprises v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing the Respondent No. 1 to file several additional documents in the ongoing trademark litigation. The application sought modification of a prior order, primarily to bring on record evidence concerning the change of ownership of trademarks and detailed arguments regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the parties' marks. This procedural step allows the court to consider complex issues related to assignment dates and examination objections.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order listing the issues in a suit for infringement and a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. The court framed multiple issues concerning whether the defendant infringed the patent and whether the patent is liable to be revoked under various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.
Kaha Pte. Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Kaha Pte. Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of a patent for application no. 02017037882. The court also addressed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from document submission requirements.
Vivek Verma & Ors. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of the trademark 'PALANG TORE MARD CHOURI PATTI' in favor of Vivek Verma & Ors. The court found that the Impugned Mark is identical or deceptively similar to the Appellant's existing marks, particularly considering the nature of the goods (chewing tobacco/gutkha) and the consumer base (illiterate sections). This decision highlights the high risk of market confusion when identical marks are used for related products.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr. v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, which had prohibited Ms. Anuradha Sharma's use of her registered trademark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found that a prima facie case existed for the appellant to challenge the order, particularly regarding the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating goodwill and likelihood of confusion in the passing off action. Furthermore, the High Court issued a directive to Commercial Courts, mandating clear findings on whether an injunction is based on infringement or passing off, and requiring positive proof of goodwill in passing off cases.
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.