IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 48 of 50 · 1,474 total
Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Bayer Healthcare Llc filed an appeal seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 1788/DELNP/2007. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the patent term had expired.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics settled their patent and trademark lawsuit over bunion‑correction technology. The settlement was announced in a press release and filed as an exhibit in the PGR proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 55 claims of Damaka’s ’116 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on obviousness grounds over prior‑art references such as Abuan, Eisenberg, Beilis, and Guzman.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging Damaka's U.S. Pat. 11,930,362, which covers modular video‑conferencing software. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel claims 1‑28 and 75.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 28 claims of Damaka’s U.S. 9,270,744 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka’s U.S. 9,027,032 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over four prior‑art references that disclose similar APIs, function blocks, and authentication mechanisms.
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.
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.