IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 87 of 140 · 4,175 total
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
Rieter Ag And Anr. v.Kavassery Narayanaswamy Venkatesubramanian
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction over an infringement suit involving designs, trademarks, and patents. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite the defendant being based elsewhere, the cause of action arose in Delhi because goods were delivered to an address there following an order placed from Delhi. The court rejected the defense's claim that the transaction was merely a 'trap purchase,' affirming that the physical delivery of goods and invoicing in Delhi established the court's jurisdiction.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
94 Cedar Properties And Trading Llp & Ors v.Shri Munish Thakur & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings related to a previous settlement concerning the trademark 'DROTIN' and its variants. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was using the deceptively similar mark 'DROTINXT' in medicinal preparations, constituting contempt of court. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their returnable appearance.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg RoP, il tetto massimo dei costi di difesa rimborsabili a favore della parte a cui tale diritto è stato riconosciuto da una decisione di merito, in ossequio al principio di proporzionalità, può essere raggiunto solo in situazioni limitate, ad esempio per la complessità delle questioni trattate, per il numero di brevetti esaminati, per le parti coinvolte o per l’uso di più lingue. 2. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg Ro
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Netherlands B.V., ZTE France SASU v.Respondent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Universal Corporation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Universal Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, noting the long history and exponential growth of the 'Moti Mahal' brand since 1920. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill, the defendant was immediately restrained from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL'.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.
In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
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.