IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 34 · 1,011 total
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The defendant failed to file a Defence to revocation within the two-month time period and did not respond to the action in any way. The claimant requested a decision by default, arguing that the patent should be revoked for extension of claim 1 beyond the application as filed, lack of novelty over prior art and public prior use, and lack of inventive step. The Court considered the conditions for a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Zydus Lifesciences Limited v.E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc
Zydus Lifesciences appealed an injunction restraining it from selling its anti-cancer drug ZRC 3276, which was allegedly infringing E. R. Squibb's patent (5C4). The court considered the conflict between protecting IP rights and ensuring access to life-saving medication. Ultimately, the court modified the order by vacating the injunction but requiring Zydus to file audited accounts of sales until the patent expires.
Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre
This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, with the PTAB finding all eight claims unpatentable based on multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' 8,385,913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange via a server.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a mobile‑commerce patent, asserting anticipation by Perttila and obviousness over Perttila combined with Swartz. The petition seeks institution of review under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing they are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art systems that use dynamic device identifiers and a central server.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,896 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing e‑commerce server technologies. The petition seeks institution of the review under §103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a proximity‑marketing patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over prior‑art systems like Perttila, Insolia and Davis. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 19‑23, 25‑26 and 28‑29.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google secured a mixed victory in IPR2020-00931, with the PTAB finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims of the ’359 patent unpatentable while leaving two claims intact.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom Wireless’s ’359 patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, citing Perttila and Insolia as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based data‑exchange patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over the Eagle reference and, for three claims, the combination of Eagle with Mgrdechian.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’129 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior art. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of fifteen claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,913 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,116,749 patent was denied. The Board found the petition’s anticipation and obviousness arguments based on Mgrdechian and Kulakowski insufficiently particularized, especially regarding dynamic identifiers and predetermined events.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' 8,369,842 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against patent 8116749 resulted in a mixed decision: five claims were held unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while four claims remained patentable because the obviousness challenge failed.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless information exchange. The PTAB found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a wireless‑communication patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier Bluetooth‑based systems such as Eagle and Mgrdechian.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate six claims of HFT Solutions’ ’286 patent, alleging that the FPGA‑PLL synchronization method is fully disclosed in Altera’s white paper, the Stratix Handbook, the Si5345 manual, and a 2012 Lockwood paper.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging InterDigital’s ’876 patent covering large‑block intra‑prediction in video codecs. The petition asserts obviousness over Xiong, VCEG‑AJ21, and H.264, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18.
Kapil Goyal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Kapil Goyal appealed the refusal by The Registrar of Trade Marks to register the mark 'DOUBLE-CHOICE' under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The initial rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and descriptive. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reasoning for deeming the mark descriptive was unfounded, especially since the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
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.