IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 80 of 189 · 5,670 total
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,143,145 and jointly request that the settlement be treated as business confidential information. The petition also seeks MWE's withdrawal from the proceeding.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,117,639 covering network access control. The petition relies on Richmond, Wood, and Teraslinna as anticipatory and obviousness prior art.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ’701 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art trading system disclosures.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Champion’s ’145 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art engine manuals and patents.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netskope’s 7,593,936 patent, asserting that all 22 claims are anticipated or obvious over Honig, Oliphant, and Vinberg. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
American Airlines et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 802.11 dual‑mode communication patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.
Vijay v.Havells India Limited
This order addresses procedural matters concerning a suit filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Vijay, which involves claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The petitioner (Vijay) is defending this suit, and the court directed that the petition be formally registered as CM (Main) (IPD) to ensure proper handling within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Array Biopharma Inc & Anr.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN304285 before the Delhi High Court. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner regarding document submission and extensions, while formally initiating the main revocation proceedings.
Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited
Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Zepto Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Zepto Private Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific trademark registration (No. 2773518) from Class 9. The court granted procedural directions, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and setting timelines for both parties to submit replies, rejoinders, and a combined written synopsis. This order moves the case forward in the process of challenging the validity or use of the registered mark.
Orient Electric Limited v.R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent EP3259902 was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 746 957. The order contains preliminary remarks and questions from the judge-rapporteur in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing claim construction, validity issues, and infringement considerations. The order also confirms the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.
M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering Works v.Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry against Hindustan Technocast regarding the trademark 'BADAL'. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's registration was obtained through fraud and fabricated documents. However, the court held that while anomalies in the respondent's documentation were noted, the petitioner failed to establish the veracity of their claims on the face of it. Consequently, the cancellation of the long-standing mark could not be granted without a thorough evidentiary test before the Trial Court.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Jai Shree Krishna Cement & Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application filed by UltraTech Cement, finding that the defendants were willfully disobeying a prior court order restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks. To enforce compliance and stop the continuing wrong, the Court ordered the attachment of the bank accounts belonging to two defendant partners for a period of six months. This action underscores the judiciary's willingness to use stringent measures under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC to protect registered well-known trademarks against persistent infringement.
Sunil Niranjan Shah v.Vijay Bahadur
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Niranjan Shah against Vijay Bahadur. Crucially, the court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the defendant's suspicious conduct and history of similar infringing activities through related parties. The court also directed the defendant to appear physically on the next date of hearing, signaling continued judicial scrutiny over the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Caremankind Hospital Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Caremankind Hospital Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks ('MANKIND'/'CAREMANKIND') in relation to similar services. This crucial early ruling protects Mankind Pharma's established brand equity while the main suit proceeds.
Lt Foods Limited v.Murli Flour Mills P Ltd
Lt Foods Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Murli Flour Mills P Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, a major player in the rice and food category, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks 'DAAWAT' and 'DAWAT' by using an identical mark for premium 'Jeera'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
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.