IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 89 of 140 · 4,175 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Court decision.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,674,432, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art NFC and biometric references. The petition lists eight grounds covering the full claim set.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Telcom Ventures’ ’411 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art NFC payment systems combined with biometric authentication. Two grounds are presented, differing on the interpretation of “physiological data.”
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
The Regents of the University of California & Others v.Union of India & Others
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Opposition Board regarding an interlocutory application related to their granted patent. The dispute centered on procedural infirmities in the post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence filed by the respondent. The court held that since the matter was still pending before the Hearing Officer and no final decision had been reached, the writ petition was premature.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh v.Ms. Jasmin Chandrakant Vora & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh sought permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for using its registered trademarks and devices. The court noted the parties' initial request for exemption from mediation but ultimately referred them to pre-litigation mediation. Subsequently, the defendants assured the court that they would withdraw infringing products from e-commerce sites within a week and were granted time to file an undertaking confirming their non-infringement intentions.
Ms Khatema Fibres Limited v.Dr Rakesh Chandra Rastogi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing Ms Khatema Fibres Limited to proceed with a rectification petition against the registered trademark 'KHATEMA' held by Defendant No. 1. The court formally initiated the proceedings, granting both parties specific timeframes—four weeks for the defendant's reply and six weeks for filing composite written synopses in related applications. This order sets the stage for a detailed legal battle over the validity of the trademark registration.
Castrol Limited And Anr v.Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Castrol Limited against Darshan Rajkumar Gurnani. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service notice, citing the need for immediate action regarding search and seizure of counterfeit goods. Crucially, the Court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize infringing products, examine accounts, and gather evidence at the defendants' premises, setting the stage for robust litigation.
Abbott Product Operations Ag & Anr. v.Medinox Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued an order compelling Defendants No. 1 and 2 (pharmaceutical distributors) to immediately cease manufacturing medicines bearing the impugned trademark 'DUPHAMED' or any variation using 'DUPHA'. This interim relief was granted in the context of urgent proceedings, while also allowing time for existing stock disposal. The court further streamlined procedural requirements by granting exemptions related to document filing and pre-institution mediation.
Ms Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v.Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce additional documents related to trademark applications and assignments in a commercial suit. The court, emphasizing that procedure is the handmaid of justice, permitted the plaintiff to place statutory Trademark Registry documents on record, despite their belated submission. However, the court rejected a third-party legal notice as irrelevant to the pleadings. This order allows the litigation to proceed with expanded evidence while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case before the Milan Local Division concerned the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving patent EP3076673 against Digital River Ireland Ltd. following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland. Both Ericsson and Digital River agreed to mutual withdrawal of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, but disagreed on costs. The Court allowed the withdrawals, ordered the main proceedings to continue against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato), and held that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Yoghurt Tv & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for the infringement of its copyrighted content by various 'Rogue Apps' like Yoghurt TV. The court initially granted procedural exemptions sought by the plaintiff regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon regulatory bodies (DoT/MEITY). Crucially, the court also passed a significant temporary injunction order, granting a 'Dynamic+' relief to protect its works against ongoing infringement across various platforms.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v.Azad Optical Co. India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Trading As Kanika Impetus v.Kamal Raheja Trading As Amaira Herbals
The Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on a Commercial Court's order that had made an ad-interim injunction absolute. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off concerning the identical trademark 'MARKS GO' used for skin products by both parties. While noting procedural deficiencies in the lower court's decision regarding passing off principles, the High Court ultimately decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order pending a full appeal hearing.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application seeking revocation of a dispensation granted to the plaintiff (Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited) allowing them to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the infringement (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Consequently, the court allowed the application seeking revocation of dispensation.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court involved an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revive its trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anita Anu. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could override a previous court order that required adherence to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant argued that the nine-month delay between the alleged knowledge (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024) was unexplained, suggesting an artificial creation of urgency.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Ona Patents SL, Ekahau Oy
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing an application to protect confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the unredacted version of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence regarding the Application to amend the patent as confidential, restricting access to specified representatives and the CEO of the Claimant.
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.