IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 81 of 140 · 4,175 total
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
Selle Royal Group S.P.A. v.Ace Footmark (P) Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Selle Royal Group S.P.A., directing the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, FIZIFREAK. The court found that FIZIFREAK was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established and well-known trademarks, fi'zi:k and FREE:K. Given the identical goods (footwear) and the clear attempt by the respondent to exploit the petitioner's goodwill, the registration of FIZIFREAK was deemed invalid.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Jai Maa Vaishnao Brick Field. The court found a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, noting that the defendant continued using protected marks ('Moti Mahal') and associated artistic elements despite the termination of a franchise agreement. Consequently, the court issued a strong injunction directing the defendant to immediately cease use of the impugned marks across all platforms, including menus, invoices, and social media websites.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
This case concerns a procedural order issued by the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against five Epson entities regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS filed an objection under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, challenging the court's jurisdiction on the ground that Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court was allegedly invalid. The dispute centers on whether Dolby's May 11, 2023 opt-out application, which listed the patent in suit on page 97, was properly withdrawn to bring the patent back under the court's jurisdiction.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Energeo Works India Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The original order refused to grant a patent in respect of Indian Patent Application No. 202211052563.
Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Zeria Pharmaceutical appealed the refusal of its patent application for a novel intermediate compound (formula 5a). The Controller refused the grant, citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), and falling within the scope of Section 3(d) due to prior art disclosures. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Junglee Games India Private Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
Junglee Games India Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against unknown parties operating deceptive websites. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the service of process, granting exemptions for advanced service due to the defendants' anonymous nature or the urgency of the relief sought. The court subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against online infringers.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Dinesh Sirvi And Ors
In a trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products 'Augsomention' and 'Sheoical-nx CCM,' the Delhi High Court issued several orders. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation while granting them liberty to file confidential sales documents in sealed cover for protection. Crucially, after both parties agreed to refer their dispute to mandatory mediation, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks until a settlement is reached.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Shree Ji Industries & Anr.
Tecniqua India Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of the trademark '/ TENDA SPORTS' (Application No. 4417483) registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties. Both sides were given specific timelines—six weeks for a reply and three weeks thereafter for a rejoinder—setting the stage for substantive arguments on trademark cancellation.
El Baik Food Systems Co Sa v.M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a dispute between El Baik Food Systems Co Sa and M/S. Albaik Foods Trading Private Limited regarding trademark, color combination, and packaging. The court noted that the defendants were preparing to file their written statement and would seek instructions on the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for renotification on August 5, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation.
Rajesh Daseja (Huf) Trading As D Rajkumar v.Simran Gaba & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a trademark dispute where Rajesh Daseja (Huf) sought the cancellation of Trademark No. 4776864 for the mark 'GSK/' from the Trade Marks Register. The court initiated the formal process, directing the petitioner to take necessary steps and issue notice to all respondents. This marks the commencement of substantive proceedings aimed at removing the disputed trademark.
Sharvan Kumar Mittal Trading As Girish Chemical Industries v.Janhvi Sharma Trading As Janhvi Chemical Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation and stay of Trademark No. 3017399, a device mark registered in Class 2. The court allowed the petitioner to proceed by directing notice to all respondents and setting key dates for filing replies and written synopses. Furthermore, the court granted an application to summon the complete registration record pertaining to related trademarks, ensuring transparency in the dispute.
Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Central Division (Munich) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. The court directed the parties to upload their pleadings in the 'Request for amendment of a patent' workflow in the case management system by June 4, 2025, beginning with the defendant's response of February 28, 2025. The order was issued to allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the reply concerning the patent amendment request of May 22, 2025, while reserving the question of whether a separate request and workflow are required for patent amendments for the interim proceedings or oral hearing.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding a request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) in a patent infringement dispute. SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 643 717 relating to a color and light mixing collective optic, brought an infringement action against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH. STRABAG had installed LED variable traffic signs at certain locations (A12, VKP Kundl, RFB Innsbruck) that it had sourced from Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd., which intervened in support of STRABAG. The Court of Appeal issued an order on May 26, 2025, addressing STRABAG's application for suspensive effect against the first instance decision of January 15, 2025.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court addressed a request by the plaintiff, Grundfos Holding A/S, for correction of obvious inaccuracies in the operative part of its earlier decision of May 8, 2025, against the defendant, Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court found the correction request admissible and well-founded, as it was filed within the one-month deadline and the defendant did not object, and accordingly corrected several paragraphs of the operative order.
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.