IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 99 of 140 · 4,175 total
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 479 680 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking leave to submit further written arguments regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the first plaintiff in a parallel US Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding involving a related patent (US 8,868,772). The defendants contend that the plaintiff's arguments before the US PTAB regarding features corresponding to features 1.2 and 1.3 of the patent in suit contradict the plaintiff's infringement assertions in the present proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.Respondent
1. The one who files a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. 2. Anyone who claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist, confirms that his financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_628/2024 ACT_58638/2024 App_8962/2025 2 APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCE
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the commencement of the reply deadline in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs (Heraeus) sought an extension of their reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that members of their Confidentiality Club only gained access to the unredacted pleadings on April 1, 2025, rather than March 17, 2025 as the court had assumed. The defendant (Vibrantz) requested clarification that the defendant's reply period begins April 22, 2025 and written proceedings end no earlier than May 22, 2025. The court addressed the question of when time limits begin to run in the context of a provisional Confidentiality Club and the impact of vacation absences of its members.
Siltronic AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, directed at a 'shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends.' The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., sought evidence preservation measures against the respondents, Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG. Respondent 1 (Siltronic AG) filed an application under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review of the inspection and evidence preservation order. The Chamber issued headnotes clarifying that evidence preservation orders may secure evidence of individual infringing acts, that Rule 196.1 RoP is not an exhaustive catalog of measures, and that such orders may include seizure of delivery notes and invoices where justified by the applicant's evidence preservation interest.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Controller Of Patents
Vifor (International) Ag appealed an order by the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used to treat iron deficiency. The appellant argued that the rejection based on lack of novelty and inventive step was flawed, as the prior art cited was irrelevant and the Controller ignored technical data provided.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam Singla v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against its 28nm‑3nm process patents, arguing national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and material examiner errors. The petition cites extensive prior art to show lack of patentability under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to invalidate all 40 claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
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.