IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 19 · 559 total
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaner patent, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over a combination of existing underwater cleaning robots and lack written‑description support for key controller features.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against the Sophia Genetics group, alleging infringement of four European patents relating to liquid biopsy technology by the 'MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHiA DDM' test. The Court rejected the application, finding that EP'073 contained added matter over its original PCT application, and that Guardant Health failed to demonstrate infringement of EP'066 and EP'986 with a sufficient degree of certainty. Guardant Health was ordered to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros in interim costs.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH
This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 11,932,230, which covers vehicle gear‑selection control. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC
Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of its vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant, Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc., challenged a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The court heard preliminary submissions regarding whether the sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4) was complied with and if the rejection order lacked adequate reasons.
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Gloster Limited (SRA) v.Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed a complex dispute regarding the ownership and status of the trademark 'Gloster' within the context of insolvency proceedings (IBC). The core issue was whether the trademark, which had been assigned to Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), remained an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Court ultimately set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the trademark belonged to the Corporate Debtor, but clarified that this ruling did not definitively resolve the underlying title dispute between the parties. This judgment highlights the limitations of insolvency forums in adjudicating complex intellectual property ownership claims.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Symrise Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Symrise Ag filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 202117041016) for 'An Antimicrobial Mixture', holding that it was not patentable under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner submitted that a third-party post grant opposition had led to the revocation of the patent held by the respondents under Section 25(2) read with Section 25(4) of the Patent Act, 1970. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition as infructuous.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited, filed an affidavit seeking leave from the Delhi High Court to amend its claims in a patent application. The company asserted that the amendments were lawful, bona fide, and did not broaden the original disclosure, but merely provided clarification.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Uvw Extruder
Steer Engineering Private Limited appealed against a commercial court order that dismissed its application for temporary injunction. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Patent No. 318271, titled 'Stress Concentration Free Spline Profile', which protects components used in Twin Screw Extruders. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the patent during the pendency of the suit.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action. The Pinterest defendants sought the change on grounds of fairness, arguing English was their common working language and the language of the patent. Nagravision opposed, citing its Swiss domicile and Pinterest's German market activity. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the proceedings to be conducted in English without specific translation arrangements.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.
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.