IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 85 of 140 · 4,175 total
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision in IPR2025‑00951, citing claim‑construction issues. The petition was filed by Generac and co‑petitioners against Champion Power’s generator patent.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Iono Pharma’s epinephrine prodrug patent. Iono Pharma argues the request fails statutory standards and should be denied.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR on its epinephrine prodrug patent, arguing factual errors and improper reliance on settled‑expectation criteria.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., regarding a dual-fuel generator control system. The Board found sufficient showing of obviousness and anticipation across multiple grounds using prior art references like DuroMax and De Vries.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited v.James Glendye And Co Limited and Ors
The Calcutta High Court, in its Intellectual Property Rights Division, admitted the plaint filed by Tirupati Vancom Private Limited against James Glendye and Co Limited. The court granted leave under relevant provisions due to the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for a consent decree in the dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark infringement concerning 'PEPFIZ' and 'MINOZ'. Key terms include Defendants recognizing Plaintiff's exclusive rights, agreeing to cease use of deceptively similar marks like 'PEPFIX' and 'MINOZIL', and changing the product name from 'MINOZIL' to 'MINODYL'. The court partially decreed the suit based on these binding settlement terms.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Article 53(f) of the UPCA allows the Court to perceive the functionality of the embodiments (patented and attacked) and comprises all activities detailed in Articles 170(1)(c) and 170(2)(f) and (g) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore, not only inspections. According to Article 53(f) UPCA, the Court may compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality. If a party offers to exhibit the object in accordance with Rule 1
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademark And Anr.
Andreas Gutzeit appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which rejected his patent application, "Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Application," primarily on grounds of non-compliance with Section 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether the amendment—specifically changing the claim from a method to a system—was permissible under the law. The Calcutta High Court found serious infirmities in the Controller's order, noting that it failed to properly assess if the amendments broadened the scope beyond the original specification. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the merits.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.
Nocil Ltd v.Finorchem Ltd And Anr
The defendants filed an application seeking revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The dispute involves allegations of patent infringement and breach of confidentiality concerning the manufacturing process of 4-ADPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded urgency based on a holistic reading of the plaint.
Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd v.Yash Tiwari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed key issues in the trademark infringement suit filed by Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd against Yash Tiwari & Anr. The core dispute revolves around whether the defendants breached an MoU and infringed upon the 'Salestown' trademark used for a CRM software. Crucially, the court clarified that while injunctions are sought regarding 'Salestown,' the defendants remain free to use any other CRM software in their business.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart v.Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
Microtex Energy Private Limited v.Microtek International Private Limited and Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 116/2025, where the petitioner sought the cancellation of the trademark 'MICROTEK TECHNOLOGY WE LIVE' (No. 3482800). The court issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. Several ancillary applications regarding document submission and procedural matters were also disposed of by the court.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ram Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the dispute between Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited and Ram Kumar & Anr., addressing both rectification and interim stay applications. The court granted an interim stay on the registration of trademark No. 5849311, recognizing the petitioner's prior rights concerning similar packaging and marks (JK/JKLC). Furthermore, the court directed the initiation of formal proceedings for the rectification of the impugned mark in Class 19, setting clear timelines for notice and response from all parties.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The appeal challenged the rejection order, citing exceptional delays in the patent process. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, for leave to amend its case pursuant to Rule 263 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought leave to introduce new submissions regarding the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged further gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' as additional attacked embodiments, arguing these were triggered by the Defendants' prior-use right defence. The Defendants (Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH) opposed the application, contending that leave was necessary and should not be granted because the Claimant should have included these submissions in its Statement of Claim given prior US proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission in response to the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) opposed the request as an inadmissible repeat of a previously dismissed application. The court held the request admissible due to special circumstances, partially postponed the final decision on admission until the oral hearing, and otherwise rejected the request, granting the claimant two weeks to submit a written pleading strictly limited to the issue of Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0.
FLSmidth Inc. v.Metso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
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.