IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 82 of 189 · 5,670 total
Adventia Pharma, S.L & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adventia Pharma appealed against the Assistant Controller's order dated January 29, 2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117035025. The court allowed applications for exemption and condonation of delay before directing parties to file synopsis and list the case.
Gruner Ag v.Guangxi Ramway Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for alleged patent infringement. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and replication. Various interim applications regarding stay, additional documents, and directions to Customs were also addressed.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Soni Hospitality Services & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Moti Mahal Delux Management Services and Soni Hospitality Services based on an amicable settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('Moti Mahal', 'Tandoori Trail') and agreed to cease all use of confusingly similar marks, hand over promotional materials, and adhere strictly to the terms of a new franchise agreement. This judgment highlights how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.
Chet Chamnitiravanich v.Organovedics Through Its Partners Ms. Sonia and Mr. Nitin Gangadhar and Ors
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief to the plaintiff, Chet Chamnitiravanich. The court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory and seize counterfeit 'MENA' soap products being manufactured and exported by the defendants. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of stopping counterfeiting, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory advance service requirements against key defendants.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,077,791 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts that the claims are overly broad and lack both written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Merck seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of all claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sandpiper CDN’s 8,595,778 patent covering video‑stream authorization, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’285 patent covering OFDM techniques. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that a discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of GenghisComm’s ’005 OFDM patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the patent is post‑AIA and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Xiaomi for allegedly infringing their patented technology, 'A Communication Device Finder System', which is listed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court dismissed both applications for interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of infringement and noting an inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. v.Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. was infringing its patent related to textile machinery. The suit sought an injunction, based on products being imported and used in Pune, Maharashtra. However, the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the Bombay High Court's purview. Consequently, the court allowed the application for return of the plaint, dismissing the amendment request as well.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
M/S Swagath v.Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.
Staar Surgical Company v.Jagrat Natvar Dave Trading As Polymer Technologies International & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a rectification application filed by Staar Surgical Company against the trademark 'IPC L' under No. 2511431. The court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Registry to serve notice, the applicant failed to appear or ensure proper service of process. Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of prosecution, though the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the case if difficulties are overcome.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG and Renault S.A.S. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (Order on Language of Proceedings)
The President of the Court of First Instance granted an application by the Renault defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP3726780 was granted. The claimant Avago Technologies opposed the change, arguing that the alleged infringement occurred exclusively in Germany and that German allowed for more precise communication. The court held that the position of the defendants should prevail in the balancing of interests, given the claimant's flexibility in choosing the forum and language.
Network Systems Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
This appeal concerned access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in three patent infringement actions brought by Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) against Qualcomm entities before the Munich Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected both NST's appeal seeking access for an additional US attorney (Peter Krusiewicz) and Qualcomm's cross-appeal seeking to revoke access even for the one US attorney (Daniel S. Stringfield) already granted access by the Munich LD. The Court held that the Munich LD's discretionary decision to grant access to only one trusted US attorney was not flawed, as NST failed to demonstrate that more than one US attorney was necessary.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' submission of June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing technical unavailability of the UPC CMS filing system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The court rejected the request, holding that the temporary CMS shutdown is already addressed by the automatic extension of deadlines under Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
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.