IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 39 of 50 · 1,474 total
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apriori Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Apriori Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision dated 15.12.2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202017008435. The court issued notice to the respondent and set a date for returnable hearing.
Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Vijayawada Distilleries Private Limited & Another
The plaintiff filed an interim application alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark, "OFFICER'S CHOICE," and related labels by the defendants who adopted deceptively similar marks like "EXECUTIVE CHOICE" and "OLD CROWN". The court examined the proprietary rights, noting that the Plaintiff had secured registrations for these marks and variants. Based on a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and evidence of deceptive similarity, the court granted ad-interim relief.
Geron Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Geron Corporation appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its application concerning telomerase inhibitors. The core dispute was whether the claimed 'in vitro screening method' was, in substance, a diagnostic process that falls under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court ultimately held that despite being drafted as a screening method, the claims covered a diagnostic process essential to medical decision-making and were therefore not patentable.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This appeal concerned the review of an ex parte order for inspection issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf. Ecovacs had applied for an order to inspect and preserve evidence of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 808 512. The Court of Appeal addressed the heightened duty of candour imposed on applicants seeking ex parte orders under R. 192.3 RoP, holding that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts relevant to the proportionality assessment cannot be remedied by later submissions in response to a request for review.
Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v.Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a Trademark Suit against the respondent (defendant) alleging infringement by using the similar trade name 'Kshetrapal Construction'. The appeal challenged the trial court's order rejecting the application for an interim injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish secondary meaning and had suppressed material facts.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting the grant of a patent application. The Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal, which was accepted by the Respondent.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead expert evidence regarding the potential revocation of an impugned patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to file the necessary evidence affidavit.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPENAI LP, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY v.KEEEX SAS
1 Ordonnance de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13 mars 2026 EN-TÊTE : En principe, le mémoire en demande doit contenir les éléments de droit et fait nécessaires pour justifier la compétence de la juridiction. Lorsque la compétence de la juridiction est fo
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
International Bridge Technologies Middle East DMCC v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, (2)(1)(1)
The assessee, a UAE-based company engaged in bridge design, challenged an assessment order classifying professional fees received for providing Design Support Services for the Versova-Bandra Sea Link Project as taxable royalty. The assessee argued that since ownership of the designs was outrightly transferred to Systra India, it constituted a sale of intellectual property rather than a right to use, thus not falling under the DTAA definition of royalty.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
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.