IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 96 of 140 · 4,175 total
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India
This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in preparation for an oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants in the AYLO group and related entities. The order confirms the hearing dates of May 7-8, 2025, and raises preliminary questions regarding the formulation of the plaintiffs' claims, particularly whether the alleged infringing embodiments have been sufficiently identified and whether the plaintiffs seek cumulative or sequential examination of the multiple streaming services attributed to the defendants.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against five Samsung entities regarding European patent No. 2 403 266. Samsung filed a Rule 9 application seeking a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all Defendants, citing disparate actual service dates and anticipated delays in serving the Korean Defendant. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 5 August 2025 for all Defendants and instructing the Registry to enter 5 May 2025 as the virtual service date for all Defendants.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns an application for the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant — including employee numbers, annual revenue, and annual balance sheet totals — as confidential. Access to this information on the plaintiff's side was restricted to the plaintiff's external attorney and its Chief Financial Officer.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_537/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/03/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - 11-1 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku - 601-8501 - Kyoto - JP Represented by Johannes Heselberger
bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer S.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Oy v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-LINK ENTERPRISES FRANCE, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 186 937, with Atlas Global Technologies GmbH as plaintiff and four TP-LINK entities as defendants. The proceedings combine an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. With the consent of all parties, the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 on 17 April 2025.
Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V., Pfizer Inc, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed the reimbursement of costs arising from the main infringement proceedings and related interim/interlocutory proceedings between Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH as plaintiff and Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH as defendants. The decision establishes that dividing tasks among multiple lawyers and patent attorneys does not generate additional reimbursable costs, and that costs from interim proceedings are separately reimbursable with their own upper limits distinct from the main proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon.com, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Amazon against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Amazon's request for an unredacted version of documents and information from Nokia in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 661 892. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main action, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the appeal had become moot. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by applying Rule 360 RoP, holding that the rule applies not only when the main claim becomes moot but also when the appeal itself becomes moot.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.
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.