IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 82 of 140 · 4,175 total
M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark registration 'PACTYON' held by Wockhardt Limited. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the mark was registered in Mumbai. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the matter will proceed through standard litigation steps.
Ihhr Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v.Avirup Sircar
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation in a trademark opposition case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, noting that extensive prior communication and action had already taken place between the parties regarding the mark 'ANANDA RESORTS'. Consequently, both parties were directed to participate in pre-litigation mediation before proceeding with the main litigation.
Castrol Limited v.Govind Mohan Sharma
In a matter concerning trademark recognition, Castrol Limited sought to establish its 'CASTROL' and 'ACTIV' marks as well-known trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff presented detailed arguments supporting this claim. While the court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the well-known status, it granted an adjournment to the defendant for further submissions, indicating that the matter remains active in litigation.
Harpal Singh Gulati v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Harpal Singh Gulati challenging the rejection of his trademark application for 'Martban -MAA KE HAATH SA'. The core dispute revolves around the appellant's claim of prior use. Crucially, M/s Martbaan, proprietor of similar marks, was impleaded as a respondent to participate in the proceedings. The Court set out a detailed schedule for filing pleadings and listing the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of the plaintiff, Mohammed Azam Trading As M/S Noor Ahmed. The court granted an immediate interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NURY/' while the main suit proceeds. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation, setting a clear path for the litigation's progression.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed an appeal seeking to quash a previous opposition order related to trademark application no. 6109894 in Class 30. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, allowing both the appellant (Parle) and respondent no. 2 sufficient time—six weeks for synopsis filing and subsequent reply periods—to prepare their arguments before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Germany GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Denmark ApS, Moderna Biotech Spain SL, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA v.Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
Hurom Co., Ltd v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
This case before the Paris Local Division concerned a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. The court addressed three key issues: the admissibility of amended patent claims (rejecting the defendant's added-matter objection based on alleged intermediate generalization), the procedural framework for objections under Article 34 UPCA regarding the territorial scope of UPC decisions (holding such objections fall outside R.19 RoP), and the claimant's request for infringement remedies in Poland. While the Poland-related claim was admissible following the BSH v Electrolux precedent, the court found it unfounded on the merits due to the claimant's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding specific infringing acts in that territory.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna Biotech UK Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/05/2025 Moderna, Inc. (Defendant) - 325 Binney Street - MA 02142 - Cambridge - US Statement of claim served on 21/04/2025 Moder
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against Juul Labs International Inc. regarding EP 3 504 991 before the Paris Central Division, which dismissed the action and ordered NJOY to bear the costs. NJOY appealed the cost decision, but subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R.265 RoP, with Juul Labs' consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the appeal court fees to NJOY.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr v.Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' review petition, significantly modifying a previous order to strengthen their intellectual property protections. The court clarified that the injunction against the Defendants must cover not only traditional goods but also digital services like virtual worshipping and darshan under the 'DEVDARSHAN' trademark. Furthermore, the judgment reinforced the specific performance of the prior Settlement Agreement and mandated the removal of all related listings.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. Both parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure to allow them to focus on finalizing ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur granted the stay, formalizing the provisional stay that had already taken effect by email on 21 May 2025, and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant sought to file a further written pleading to respond to new arguments raised by the defendants in their rejoinder, but the judge-rapporteur dismissed this request on 1 April 2025. The claimant then filed an application for review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order and rejected the application for panel review, finding the request for a further written submission unfounded.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
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.