IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 49 of 50 · 1,474 total
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.
Steigerwald Arzneimittlewerk Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application (No. 1285/DEL/2009) on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The invention relates to a method for producing a plant-based medicament, Iberogast, which requires a specific mixing sequence for stable quality. The High Court found infirmities in the Controller's order regarding the reasoning under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its subject trade mark, 'PETKIND', citing similarity to a prior application. The Appellant argued that their extensive use and established goodwill with marks containing 'KIND' should qualify them for higher protection. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation regarding European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for mobile Internet browsing using location data. Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation, and Suinno applied to amend the patent in response. The Court addressed the procedural requirements and admissibility criteria for such amendment applications, distinguishing between objective requirements (filing deadline, inclusion of at least one amendment, use of the official language) and matters of judicial discretion (clarity, sufficiency of explanation, reasonableness of number of amendments).
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Comunication Co., Ltd a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Nera Innovations Ltd. following appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP against an order of the Hamburg Local Chamber dated 24 April 2024, which had rejected the claimant's request to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. through their German subsidiary. The court addressed the scope of reimbursable representation costs, the number of authorized representatives required, and the recovery of travel expenses for oral hearings. The decision establishes that appeal proceedings on specific procedural issues do not require more than one authorized representative and that the standard ceiling of reimbursable representation costs does not apply to such procedural appeals.
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v.Koninklijke Philips Nv
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's decree awarding substantial damages against the appellants (Maj Retd. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) for infringing Patent IN 2182555 held by Koninklijke Philips Nv. The court adjudicated applications seeking stay of execution of this judgment and decree.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Anrose Pharma
The suit was filed alleging infringement and passing off concerning the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of 'ZEROVOL-P' was deceptively similar, confusingly misleading, and aimed at capitalizing on the Plaintiff's goodwill in medicinal preparations. Given the Defendant failed to contest the suit despite being served, the Court decreed the suit.
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.