IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 80 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.
M/S Mishu Enterprises v.M/S Nakshatra 13
The plaintiff, M/S Mishu Enterprises, owns and uses the distinctive mark 'MACHHMANI' for selling sea stones and related jewellery. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, M/S Nakshatra 13, alleging unauthorized use of the same mark to deceive the public. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunctions.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
BPTP Limited v.Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of BPTP Limited against Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BPTP' to promote a non-existent project, causing potential market confusion and irreparable harm. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from advertising or dealing in services under the disputed marks and directed to immediately take down all infringing online content.
Mankind Agritech Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Agritech Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of registration for its trademark application no. 5617624 in Class 1. The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order, setting out the timeline and requirements for both parties to proceed with the appeal. This interim step allows the appellant to challenge the Registrar's decision regarding the trademark refusal.
More Retail Private Limited v.Begud Beverages Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by More Retail Private Limited seeking the cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by Begud Beverages Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement agreement between the parties, which stipulated the cancellation as part of the compromise of the underlying commercial suit. The court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed with the revocation.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 brought by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against three Advanced Bionics entities. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and the plaintiff requested admission of the withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and declined to order reimbursement of court fees due to extraordinary circumstances.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
UPC Decision UPC-000670 v.Respondent
- Rule 355.2 RoP requires that, before issuing a decision by default against a defendant based on a procedural violation or failure to defend, the Court must verify that the case file contains sufficient, precise and consistent evidence to enable the judgment to be issued. A decision by default cannot be issued against the defendant based solely on a procedural violation or failure to defend. - A patent has its own lexicon. However, patent terms should be interpreted following a straightfo
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection issued on February 3, 2025. The applicant, Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG, sought evidence preservation measures against ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent challenged the order, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of patent infringement and the risk of loss of evidence. The court rejected the respondent's request to lift the order, finding that the applicant had presented all reasonably available evidence to support its claim of patent infringement.
CENTRIPETAL LIMITED v.PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
This is an order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA. The order sets out general legal principles regarding the standard of proof required for such applications, the distinction between preservation of evidence proceedings and merits proceedings, and the need to balance the applicant's interest in effective enforcement against the defendant's fundamental rights. The text provided contains only the headnotes of the decision and is cut off before the full reasoning and operative part are disclosed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1, brought by Aylo Premium Ltd. against DISH Technologies L.L.C. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought full revocation of the patent, while the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence and an Application to amend the Patent, including auxiliary requests. The headnote establishes that the Court can, if requested, limit the scope of revocation of a European patent to national parts validated in individual UPC Member States, with the key legal issues being added matter and claim interpretation.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
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.