IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 84 of 189 · 5,670 total
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Array Biopharma, Inc & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN304285 ('ERBB Inhibitors') granted to Respondent No. 1 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding filing documents and extensions of time.
Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.
Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal case, Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr. The court allowed the appellant to withdraw a previously filed review petition. Crucially, the court also condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the main appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025). Following these procedural orders, the case was listed for final hearing on May 27, 2025.
Network 18 Media And Investments Ltd v.Tv Today Network Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of trademark cancellation petitions filed by Network 18 Media against Tv Today Network Ltd. and others. The resolution was reached through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 on July 1, 2025. Both parties confirmed their adherence to the terms of this agreement, leading the Court to close the proceedings without further litigation.
M/S Avriva Solutions & Ors. v.Avriva Skintech Private Limited & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed petitions filed by defendants against the trial court's orders in a trademark infringement suit. The court upheld the grant of an interim injunction, finding that the defendants were actively infringing the plaintiff's 'AVRIVA' trademark. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the plaint rejected on procedural grounds related to directorial authority, confirming the validity of the suit.
Sahil Sachdeva & Anr. v.Ayush Dhingra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit, granting plaintiffs several procedural exemptions crucial for urgent relief. Notably, the court exempted the plaintiffs from providing advance service to defendants, recognizing the risk that defendants might destroy evidence. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to inventory and seize infringing products and inspect relevant books of accounts, setting the stage for immediate enforcement against alleged trademark infringers.
Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The claimant Swarco Futurit sought an order requiring the intervener Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd to provide security of EUR 169,000 for potential cost reimbursement claims. The court rejected the application, following the Court of Appeal's reasoning in AorticLab v. Emboline (UPC_CoA_393/2025 APL_20694/2025).
Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Inc., Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l., and Esthetec SAS
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to decide early, before the close of written proceedings, that it would hear both the infringement action filed by Quantificare S.A. and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to ensure a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a request by the claimant, Corning Incorporated, for a two-week extension of the time limit to file its Reply to the Statement of Defence and the Defence to the Counterclaim, including an Application to amend the patent EP 3 296 274. The court granted the extension, finding that the claimant had been without full access to the defendants' submissions for three weeks due to the establishment of a confidentiality regime.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and erred on factual grounds. It seeks review of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director review of a denied IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ ’336 patent was rejected, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies’ patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’188 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
AT&T SERVICES INC. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of RightQuestion’s device‑fingerprinting patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Miller reference.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s ‘444 patent, seeking cancellation of 23 claims on obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs and disputes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Mobile Data Technologies' 8,793,336 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.
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.