Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 3501–3600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
Solectric GmbH, DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,264,345, which claims thousands of modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V. v.Respondent
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Easee B.V., ***, Easee Holding B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to Easee's appeal against a Hamburg Local Division order requiring Easee to provide EUR 75,000 in security for costs related to a revocation counterclaim in a patent infringement action brought by Visibly Inc. concerning EP 3 918 974. The court found that the first instance order contained a manifest legal error, consistent with its prior ruling in AorticLab vs. Emboline, which established that Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action, nor in response to a counterclaim for revocation. The managing director's application was granted outright, while the Easee companies' application was granted provisionally pending resolution of a competence issue regarding their legal representation following their insolvency.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and the disposal of an action that had become devoid of purpose. Ballinno B.V., the proprietor of European patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation, had applied for provisional measures against the Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. After withdrawing its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the action had become devoid of purpose and disposed of it pursuant to R. 360 RoP, treating Ballinno as the unsuccessful party at both instances.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller regarding its patent application for a biological surfactant used as an anti-inflammatory agent and tissue preservative solution. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this omission.
Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani v.Deputy Controller of Patents
The appellant, Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents on January 20, 2025, seeking to allow her Indian Patent Application Number 201941026810. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel informed the court that she would withdraw this appeal and file a new appeal against an earlier order dated February 2, 2023.
Kamterter Products Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
M/s. The Sen Knitting Company v.K.S.Shenthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition filed by M/s. The Sen Knitting Company seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SEN SPIN,' and was used for identical goods (garments). Given the petitioner's established history as the prior adopter and user, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge the conflicting entry.
M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. v.M/s Pachala Murali Krishna
This Madras High Court case involves multiple rectification petitions filed by M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. against the registration of several 'MEDIA MONK' trademarks held by M/s Pachala Murali Krishna. The petitioner seeks to remove these marks, asserting its global reputation and prior use since 2001. Conversely, the respondent claims he coined and used the mark honestly in January 2009, preceding the petitioner's Indian application. The court has framed several key issues, including deceptive similarity, bad faith, and priority of adoption.
M/s.Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning the delay in processing an opposition petition against a trade mark application. M/s. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite the disposal of Opposition No. 1176324 related to Trade Mark Application No. 4853565. The Court, noting the prolonged delay despite complete pleadings, issued a directive mandating the Registrar of Trade Marks to resolve the matter within three months, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity to be heard.
UPC Decision UPC-000601 v.Respondent
Before issuing a decision by default when the defendant did not even enter proceedings, factors other than the lack of opposition must be considered. Rule 355.2 RoP has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 RoP and must be interpreted in light of the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings. This implies that, in a decision by default the Court is required to verify whether the claimant has put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal relief sought. The
American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights which dismissed its objection and issued a Copyright Certificate in favour of Respondent No.6 (Dinman Polypacks Private Limited). The appeal was filed after a significant delay, and the core issue before the court was whether sufficient cause existed to condone this 506-day delay.
N.C. Mahamood v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai
The Kerala High Court intervened in a long-pending trademark application dispute, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the process. The petitioner argued that six years had passed since filing without a final decision, despite an opposition being filed. The court ruled that such excessive delay in statutory proceedings cannot be excused by citing seniority or requiring special fees for expedited processing, compelling the authorities to act swiftly.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, relating to a cutting tool of a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The presiding judge, acting as rapporteur, set out the intended feature breakdown (Merkmalsgliederung) of patent claim 1 to be used as the basis for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025. The order also referenced a Court of Appeal decision from April 30, 2025 (Insulet v. EOFlow) regarding the scope of information sought by the applicant.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 137 782. Plant-e had initiated infringement proceedings against Arkyne before The Hague Local Division, and Arkyne had filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the Local Division found infringement and rejected the revocation counterclaim, Arkyne appealed. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm the settlement, keep its contents confidential, and Arkyne additionally sought reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Kausal Goyal And & Ors. v.Awadh Oils Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Awadh Goyal
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse ex-parte interim injunction against Kausal Goyal and others in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'Kala Ghoda'. The court found that the Appellants had established a prima facie case, particularly citing a family settlement agreement and long-standing use of the trademark. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full hearing, preventing immediate prejudice to the appellants.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
This decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola entities and Flextronics International Europe B.V. regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The ruling addresses procedural objections raised under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying that a plaintiff may rely on additional jurisdictional bases beyond those initially cited in the statement of claim or in response to an objection. The Court further clarified the scope of Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement, holding that it does not refer to Art. 33(1)(a) and does not impose special requirements for unified actions against multiple defendants who have all committed infringing acts or are domiciled in the relevant contracting member state.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Rspl Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/06/2025 REQUERANT – DEFENDEUR AU PRINCIPAL GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 Memmingen DE Représenté par Frédéric PORTAL REPONDANT – DEM
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Mr.Sampath G.V. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sampath G.V., allowing him to renew his trademark 'THE VELLORE KITCHEN DEVICE' despite alleged failures in notification by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court held that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register, the petitioner was entitled to renewal subject to fees. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to facilitate the renewal process within 30 days.
R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns a procedural application filed by The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS based on European patent EP2080349. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed the admissibility of the application under Rule 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The ruling established that the position of all parties potentially affected by a requested language change must be heard before any decision is rendered under Rule 323 RoP.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The order addresses Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS)'s application for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, which the court found to be admissible and substantively successful.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 602 692. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main infringement action on June 5, 2025. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP, finding that ILME no longer had any legal interest in a decision on the appeal.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.