IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 84 of 140 · 4,175 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited
Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Vikas Gupta / Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute over the common name 'NEHA' used in the personal care sector. The Plaintiffs, Neha Herbals, claimed infringement and passing off against Sahni Cosmetics, which uses the mark for creams. While the court acknowledged the Defendant's prior use of the mark for creams, it ultimately found that the Plaintiffs had established continuous use and valid registrations for their goods (Mehandi). Consequently, the suit seeking damages was dismissed, but the cancellation petitions filed by the Defendant were also rejected.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its 4G/5G uplink synchronization patent. The petition argues the “settled expectations” rule was misapplied and that material examiner error and the breadth of related patents merit Board review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
Greenchemicals S.R.L. v.DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
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.