IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 91 of 140 · 4,175 total
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal v.Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 2 May 2025 in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The order addresses preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including translation requirements, publication requests, cost estimates, and time limits for oral submissions. The court set a deadline of 9 May 2025 for the parties to respond to the court's requests and information.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV (Applicants) v.***
This provisional procedural order (Order IV) was issued by the Local Division Brussels on 2 May 2025 in case UPC_CFI_131/2025 concerning a request by claimants OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV for payment of litigation costs assessed at €92,814.62 under Rule 151 RoP in proceedings involving EP 2 233 036. The dispute centered on whether the costs proceedings should be suspended pending the defendant's appeal filed on 17 March 2025 against the LD Brussels decision of 17 January 2024 in UPC_CFI_376/2023. The claimants argued that under Article 74(1) UPCA, appeal has no suspensive effect and that no legal basis exists for delaying the costs decision.
Evac Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Evac Oy regarding European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1 against six defendants, including a Chinese company, German companies, and individual persons. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 (S.K. Marine Supplies GmbH, Katharina Kiran Singh Kang, and Shaminder Singh Kang) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 1 to 3 (Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Yong Cao) were ordered to continue, and no cost decision was required as the parties had agreed on costs.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney group of companies and BAMTech LLC (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) filed an application requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Mannheim. The underlying infringement action was brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. based on European Patent EP2465265 concerning methods and apparatus for improved intra chroma encoding and decoding. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the application under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, weighing the respective interests of the parties and consulting the panel of the Local Division Mannheim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
M/S. Panchajanya Features v.Bommareddy Ashok Reddy
This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Trial Court's refusal to transfer a copyright dispute concerning the Telugu movie "Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha Vinthalu" to the specialized Commercial Court. The petitioners argued that since the matter involved intellectual property rights and exceeded the specified pecuniary threshold, it inherently fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, setting aside the Trial Court's order and allowing the petition for rejection of the suit.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.
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.