IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 90 of 189 · 5,670 total
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Rspl Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This is a procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 602 692. The appeal was filed by ILME against an order of the Local Division Munich rejecting ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action brought by PHOENIX CONTACT. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the infringement action, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP without a costs order.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company and Others
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, sought a rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without hearing it and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that Alexion's submissions amounted to mere disagreement with the court's reasoning rather than establishing a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action (ACT_39091/2024) regarding European Patent EP2404516 initiated by N.J Diffusion SARL against Gisela Mayer GmbH. After judicial reorganization proceedings were opened against N.J Diffusion on June 5, 2025, Gisela Mayer sought a security for costs guarantee of €50,000 under Rule 158 RoP and a postponement of the oral hearing. The panel admitted the voluntary intervention of the judicial administrator and judicial agent, but declared the guarantee request inadmissible, holding that granting such a guarantee to one creditor of a debtor in judicial reorganization would violate the principle of equality of creditors under French collective proceedings law.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
Aerin Medical has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Neurent’s ’262 patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering nasal neuromodulation technology.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Mr.Sampath G.V. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sampath G.V., allowing him to renew his trademark 'THE VELLORE KITCHEN DEVICE' despite alleged failures in notification by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court held that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register, the petitioner was entitled to renewal subject to fees. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to facilitate the renewal process within 30 days.
R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company Limited et al.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Walt Disney entity defendants filed an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS concerning EP 2080349. The Claimant did not raise new objections, and all other defendants joined the application. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS) filed a request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information. The court granted the request, classifying information contained in the unredacted settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Defendant 6 as confidential, and ordered Defendants 1-5 to treat such information as confidential and not use it outside the proceedings.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Milan Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request amendment (AR4), withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The parties were granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is an interim conference order from the Milan Local Division in proceedings concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request (AR4) amendment, withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The judge-rapporteur referred the admissibility of the AR4 amendment to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing and granted the parties a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and costs.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
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.