Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4301–4400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v.Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar filed a suit seeking recognition of copyright and injunction against Mr. A.R. Rahman and others regarding the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti'. The plaintiff alleged that his ancestral work was being used in the song 'Veera Raja Veera' without proper attribution or authorization. The Delhi High Court, while addressing an interim application, found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. Consequently, the court directed mandatory changes to credit slides on online platforms and ordered a substantial deposit from the defendants.
Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH, for an extension of deadlines under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement and revocation counterclaim case concerning European Patent EP 3 770 330 B1. The court granted the extension, finding that the USB stick containing key exhibits (MW 3 to 5, MW 17, and MW 27) was only served on the plaintiff on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's submissions, constituting an exceptional circumstance justifying the relief. The deadlines for the plaintiff's reply to the infringement defense and response to the revocation counterclaim were extended from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 DECISION AU FOND du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/04/2025 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Pauline Debré Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Laetitia Nicolazzi Gyeongg
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Court decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India
This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in preparation for an oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants in the AYLO group and related entities. The order confirms the hearing dates of May 7-8, 2025, and raises preliminary questions regarding the formulation of the plaintiffs' claims, particularly whether the alleged infringing embodiments have been sufficiently identified and whether the plaintiffs seek cumulative or sequential examination of the multiple streaming services attributed to the defendants.
Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against five Samsung entities regarding European patent No. 2 403 266. Samsung filed a Rule 9 application seeking a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all Defendants, citing disparate actual service dates and anticipated delays in serving the Korean Defendant. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 5 August 2025 for all Defendants and instructing the Registry to enter 5 May 2025 as the virtual service date for all Defendants.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.Alpina Coffee Systems GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns an application for the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant — including employee numbers, annual revenue, and annual balance sheet totals — as confidential. Access to this information on the plaintiff's side was restricted to the plaintiff's external attorney and its Chief Financial Officer.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_537/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/03/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - 11-1 Hokotate-cho, Kamitoba, Minami-ku - 601-8501 - Kyoto - JP Represented by Johannes Heselberger
bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH had sued defendants Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for patent infringement, while the defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Following a January 14, 2025 decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and dismissing the invalidity counterclaim, the defendants filed a cost assessment application on February 13, 2025 seeking reimbursement of EUR 9,732.21 in costs related to the infringement proceedings.
Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Pfizer Aps, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer S.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Oy v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_687/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-LINK ENTERPRISES FRANCE, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 186 937, with Atlas Global Technologies GmbH as plaintiff and four TP-LINK entities as defendants. The proceedings combine an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. With the consent of all parties, the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 on 17 April 2025.
Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V., Pfizer Inc, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed the reimbursement of costs arising from the main infringement proceedings and related interim/interlocutory proceedings between Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH as plaintiff and Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH as defendants. The decision establishes that dividing tasks among multiple lawyers and patent attorneys does not generate additional reimbursable costs, and that costs from interim proceedings are separately reimbursable with their own upper limits distinct from the main proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/04/2025 Claimants Pfizer Inc. Pfizer Europe MA EEIG Pfizer B.V. Pfizer S.A. Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon.com, Inc. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Amazon against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Amazon's request for an unredacted version of documents and information from Nokia in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 661 892. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main action, Amazon informed the Court of Appeal that the appeal had become moot. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by applying Rule 360 RoP, holding that the rule applies not only when the main claim becomes moot but also when the appeal itself becomes moot.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Nivagen’s orphan‑drug patent. The petitioner argues the denial improperly treated claim‑construction issues as discretionary and was issued by the wrong official.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
Scandit AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant, Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co., seeks full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter beyond the original and earlier application EP 3 055 603. The Defendant, Häfele SE & Co. KG, contests the revocation and has filed 80 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The order is a Case Management Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur addressing procedural directions, including the uncontested value of the proceedings set at EUR 500,000.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon initiated an IPR against Datonics LLC's patent (US 10984445) concerning profile-based behavioral targeting. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable as obvious over prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
TP-Link Deutschland GmbH v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. The plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation against three Vantiva entities. By agreement of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the plaintiff's application of April 9, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.