Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4501–4600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV 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) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. 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 while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Advanced Electric Machines Group Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
This appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning an improved electrical sub-assembly for electric/hybrid vehicles, which aimed to enhance Switched Reluctance Machines (SRMs). The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the invention. The court found significant procedural flaws in the respondent's decision, including failure to issue a proper Second Examination Report and citing foreign documents without translation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.
Fashnear Technologies Private Limited v.John Doe/S And Ors
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction reliefs sought by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited against John Doe and others. The court issued sweeping directives requiring entities like NPCI, telecom service providers, and Meta Platforms to take immediate action—including blocking UPI IDs, suspending phone numbers, and removing infringing social media content—to protect the plaintiff's trademarks ('MEESHO') and copyrights. This order sets a strong precedent for how IP holders can leverage court intervention against digital infringement across multiple platforms.
Alpinestars 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
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
UCB Pharma GMBH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
UCB Pharma appealed an order refusing to proceed with its patent application for a solid dispersion formulation of Rotigotine. The court found that the Controller had caused inordinate delays and violated statutory timelines, compounded by citing new prior art documents at the hearing without proper notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117, filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse Board of Appeal decision at the EPO, while maintaining its claims regarding EP'364. The defendants contended that the application constituted a partial withdrawal governed by Rule 265 RoP, requiring the claimant to bear the defendants' costs. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP applies both to limitations of the relief sought (petitum) and to limitations of the cause of action (causa petendi), and that unlike Rule 265 RoP, Rule 263 RoP does not regulate proceeding costs because the proceedings continue against the defendants in relation to the remaining claims.
Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v.Luxe Moto LLP
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory protection, arguing it contains highly sensitive business information. The request seeks Board order to treat the agreement as business confidential information and limit its disclosure.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,936,693, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 8,230,101 on obviousness grounds over Lamkin, Franke, Fiechter, and Ito references.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition for IPR against Wiz’s AI‑cloud security patent, contending that the claims are obvious over existing cloud‑scanning (Shua) and AI‑analysis (Lang) references.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,722,554, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art patents by Shivamoggi, Zhong, and Woolward. The petition lists three grounds covering 19 claims and requests the Board to institute the review.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies LLC's patent (8230101), challenging claims 7-12 based on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The Board found that the Petition met the reasonable likelihood standard, particularly regarding how Lamkin discloses key limitations related to content location and tree structure.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s cybersecurity patent (12001549) because the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., maintained inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal forums.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR on all 29 claims of Wiz, Inc.'s patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that a combination of Ross, Agarwal, and Biran teaches every limitation of Claim 1, establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Orca failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, specifically regarding the required 'list of abnormal connections' feature.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against three Meril entities (based in Germany, India, and Italy) before the Local Division Munich, alleging that Meril's 'Myval' transcatheter heart valve and 'Navigator' delivery device infringed EP 3 669 828 B2 ('Prosthetic Heart Valve'). Meril contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, while Edwards sought to amend the patent. The Court rejected Meril's preliminary objections on jurisdiction, upheld the patent as amended, found infringement, and ordered cease-and-desist, recall, destruction, disclosure, publication, and provisional damages of EUR 663,000.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of a preliminary injunction application filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The Lisbon Local Division held that R. 150 RoP can apply to cost decisions following the rejection of a preliminary injunction, and applied the principle of proportionality to award only the travel expenses of the representatives (EUR 4,946.22), rejecting the other claimed costs to avoid the risk of double assessment with the subsequently filed main action on the merits.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Fingon LLC
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Samsung in a patent infringement action brought by Fingon LLC regarding EP 2 839 403. The defendants challenged the validity of the claimant's withdrawal of an opt-out and the UPC's temporal jurisdiction over acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force and during the opt-out period. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the preliminary objection, holding that questions of fact and law relevant to both jurisdiction and the merits should be reserved for the main proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.Respondent
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Digital River Ireland Ltd. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Following Digital River's insolvency and winding-up order by an Irish court, Ericsson sought leave to withdraw the action against Digital River. The Court allowed the partial withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, directed Ericsson to file an amended Statement of Claim within 10 days, and granted AsusTek two months to file its Statement of Defence from service of the amended pleading.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
H2 Intellect LLC urges the PTAB Director to deny Home Depot’s request for review of the Board’s institution decision, arguing that the Board correctly found the prior art did not disclose key claim limitations and that Home Depot raised new arguments not in its original petition.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 9,779,418 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect’s location‑based advertising patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied claim construction and ignored obviousness of key limitations. The request urges reversal of the denial.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect's patent 8,433,296.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot's patent owner H2 Intellect and Samsung settled the related district court case, prompting a joint motion to stay PTAB deadlines. The parties seek a 30‑day stay to finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc.'s patent (11941817) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Renisch and Zhao.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding its challenge to Mullen Industries' patent covering head-mounted displays and interactive systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness (103) based on combinations of prior art.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR petition against H2 Intellect LLC's location-based content delivery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, citing insufficient teaching or suggestion in the prior art.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Navanath Ambre
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals challenging the trial court's refusal to grant various ex-parte reliefs, including an interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, and disclosure of sensitive information from former employees (the respondents). The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had divulged confidential company data, client lists, and manufacturing processes after resigning. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the trial court committed no procedural or jurisdictional error in denying these urgent ex-parte orders.
Pfizer AB , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. v.Promosome LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 April 2025 Preliminary Objections: 8315/2025 8851/2025 10368/2025 8312/2025 8203/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted EOFlow to withdraw its application for leave to appeal against an order of the Central Division (Milan) that had dismissed EOFlow's application for a cost decision without examination of the substance. Insulet agreed to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a decision on the costs of the leave to appeal proceedings.
BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC
This case concerns a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking to compel the claimant Promosome LLC to produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in support of its infringement claims. The court rejected the defendants' request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, holding that the defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of any defense, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity analysis under §315(b).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. and WEC Energy Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits decision has been rendered.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
Bts Research International Pty Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai
The petitioner appealed against the rejection of its patent application, which claimed a method for generating tri-hybrid cells. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing that the hybrid cell fell within the definition of naturally occurring organisms or biological processes. The High Court found this conclusion unsubstantiated, noting the artificial and human intervention required to create the synthetic tri-hybrid cells.
M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited v.M/S. Tega Industries Limited
This revision petition challenged an order rejecting a petition filed by M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited (the defendant in the original suit) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerned a patent infringement suit (C.S. No.01 of 2019) where the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court upheld the original order, finding that the suit was properly filed based on prior judicial directions and the defendant's business location.
Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The court quashed the order that deemed his word mark application 'LABAPEN' abandoned due to failure to respond to an opposition notice. Citing previous precedent, the court held that service via email alone is insufficient when the applicant cannot prove receipt, thereby protecting the substantive rights of trademark applicants. Consequently, both the application and the opposition were restored for fresh consideration.
R.Dilip Kumar v.The Registrar of Trademarks, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by R.Dilip Kumar against the Registrar of Trademarks, quashing an order that deemed his trademark application 'PIRALEX' abandoned. The court emphasized that the statutory right of the applicant is at stake and ruled that service of opposition via email alone, without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating the response period. Consequently, both the trademark application and the opposition were restored to the file, allowing the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond on merits.
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) challenging an order that dismissed its applications for interim injunction. The core dispute centered on the use of the 'HAMDARD' trademark and associated products, particularly in relation to the Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA). Hamdard alleged misleading claims by UDMA regarding market share and product categorization. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved a commercial dispute requiring adjudication by a specialized Commercial Court.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH 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 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone successfully instituted an IPR against Airspace Systems regarding claim 21 of patent 10713959. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art reference Beard. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to trial, focusing on obviousness in low-altitude aircraft identification systems.
Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)
Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.