Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4401–4500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer AB v.Promosome LLC
Promosome LLC filed 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 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a denied institution decision, arguing that the ’747 patent was erroneously issued and threatens U.S. national‑security‑critical chip production. The petition highlights material examiner errors, lack of settled expectations by the patent owner, and the impact of the 2025 government shutdown on the Fintiv analysis.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Apple Inc. successfully challenged Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s patent claims, leading to an institution decision where the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 11 claims. The grounds for unpatentability centered on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), utilizing multiple prior art references including Lan, Wang407, and Chen.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.IMO Holding Gmbh
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) challenging the validity of Patent IN254458, arguing that it lacked novelty and did not comply with relevant provisions of the Patents Act. However, the counsel for the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they had reached a settlement with the contesting respondent.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 479 680 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking leave to submit further written arguments regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the first plaintiff in a parallel US Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding involving a related patent (US 8,868,772). The defendants contend that the plaintiff's arguments before the US PTAB regarding features corresponding to features 1.2 and 1.3 of the patent in suit contradict the plaintiff's infringement assertions in the present proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.Respondent
1. The one who files a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. 2. Anyone who claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist, confirms that his financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_628/2024 ACT_58638/2024 App_8962/2025 2 APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCE
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the commencement of the reply deadline in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs (Heraeus) sought an extension of their reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that members of their Confidentiality Club only gained access to the unredacted pleadings on April 1, 2025, rather than March 17, 2025 as the court had assumed. The defendant (Vibrantz) requested clarification that the defendant's reply period begins April 22, 2025 and written proceedings end no earlier than May 22, 2025. The court addressed the question of when time limits begin to run in the context of a provisional Confidentiality Club and the impact of vacation absences of its members.
Siltronic AG v.Respondent
This case concerns an order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, directed at a 'shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends.' The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., sought evidence preservation measures against the respondents, Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG. Respondent 1 (Siltronic AG) filed an application under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review of the inspection and evidence preservation order. The Chamber issued headnotes clarifying that evidence preservation orders may secure evidence of individual infringing acts, that Rule 196.1 RoP is not an exhaustive catalog of measures, and that such orders may include seizure of delivery notes and invoices where justified by the applicant's evidence preservation interest.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Controller Of Patents
Vifor (International) Ag appealed an order by the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used to treat iron deficiency. The appellant argued that the rejection based on lack of novelty and inventive step was flawed, as the prior art cited was irrelevant and the Controller ignored technical data provided.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam Singla v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against its 28nm‑3nm process patents, arguing national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and material examiner errors. The petition cites extensive prior art to show lack of patentability under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to invalidate all 40 claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement related to proprietary engineering drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The core issue was whether these technical drawings fell under the definition of 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby invalidating the claim for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that determining this mixed question of law and fact could not be done at a preliminary stage (Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to conduct a full trial to comprehensively assess all IP claims.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a cost assessment procedure following the revocation of European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. had sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for patent infringement, but the Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent on October 10, 2024, and dismissed the infringement action. The defendants subsequently filed a cost assessment application on December 12, 2024, seeking recovery of €111,000 in total costs, comprising €100,000 for proceedings costs and €11,000 for court costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Soltech Energy GbR, LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., Energy3000 solar GmbH
This Procedural Order addressed the issue of service of the statement of claim on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) in a patent infringement action concerning European patent No. 4 372 829. A registered letter sent via Deutsche Post was notified for collection on 10 March 2025 but was not collected by the defendant and was returned to the Court marked 'nicht abgeholt' (unclaimed). The Court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed the statement of claim to have been served on 14 March 2025, ordering Defendant 4 to file its statement of defence by 16 June 2025.
Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, for separation of proceedings under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action against five defendants, including Motorola entities, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V. The plaintiff sought to separate the case against the fifth defendant (Flextronics) into its own proceeding and to avoid paying an additional court fee for the separated case. The fifth defendant opposed the application, arguing that the delay was caused by the plaintiff's own insufficient pre-filing investigations.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED,, Novartis AG, ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V.
The Court of Appeal granted STADAPHARM GmbH's application for public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute was a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 501 384, brought by Accord Healthcare entities against Novartis AG before the Milan Central Division. Following the withdrawal of the main proceedings by Accord, Novartis withdrew its objections, and the Court of Appeal reversed the Milan Local Division's earlier order dismissing Stadapharm's access request.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V., Memodo GmbH, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Respondent
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the continuation of the written procedure in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 108 782. The claimants (10x Genomics and Harvard) had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4 in a revised application to amend the patent submitted on 9 April 2025. The panel held that 4 auxiliary requests is indisputably a reasonable number under Rule 30.1(c) RoP, and ordered continuation of the written procedure given the proceedings had already lasted nearly two years and an oral hearing date had already been agreed.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_597/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/04/2025 APPLICANT EOFLOW Co., Ltd. (Applicant) - 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE, 216, Hwangsaeul-ro, Bundang-gu - 13595
Ericsson GmbH, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor SASU v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned two orders of the Helsinki Local Division in an infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI entities (formerly Supponor entities). The appellants challenged orders relating to the amendment of a claim under Rule 263 RoP and the addition of a defendant under Rule 305 RoP. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion under both rules, limiting appellate review, and clarified the procedural requirements for applications under these provisions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Takeda Pharmaceutical appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for Novel Protein Kinase Inhibitors (Brigatinib). The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to consider crucial supplementary data demonstrating Brigatinib's superior selectivity and therapeutic efficacy.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_698/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 10/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) ALIUD PHARMA GmbH (Applicant) - Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 19 - 89150 - Laichingen - DE Represented b
Erwin Härtwich, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.
TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschlan v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.