Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4801–4900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order by The Controller General of Patents and Designs, which had refused its patent application. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patent Act, citing concerns over public order or morality due to the nature of tobacco products. The appellant argued that the process—a method for preparing a sugar-containing syrup from Nicotiana species stalk (tobacco flavourant)—should not be rejected simply because all forms of tobacco are injurious. The court directed the Controller to take necessary instructions before further proceedings.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant, engaged in trading and distribution of consumer durables and health care products, was charged service tax on royalty received for using its logo "TTK" across group companies. The Department argued the logo functioned as a Trademark (IPR Service), while the Appellant contended it was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, exempting it from IPR service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in favor of the Appellant.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected a patent application related to microfluidic apparatuses for quantifying component concentration. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked independent application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of reasoned justification.
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
Grena Limited v.Axon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
Roku International B.V., Roku Inc. v.Sun Patent Trust
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.
Roku Inc, Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This procedural order concerns an objection filed by Roku under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants argued that the legal framework of the Unified Patent Court is incompatible with EU primary law (TFEU and TEU) and that Art. 267 TFEU is violated, also raising alleged breaches of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter and Art. 6(1) ECHR. The court rejected these arguments, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that such an objection cannot be successfully based on violations of the EU Charter or ECHR.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly requested leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fee to the defendant because the interim proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of withdrawal.
PRINOTH S.P.A. v.XELOM S.R.L.
Prinoth S.p.A., a world leader in the production of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, sought an ex parte order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative start-up belonging to the Technoalpin group. Prinoth alleged that Xelom's newly developed electric snow groomer (Snow Cat), which had been deployed at several ski resorts in Austria, South Tyrol, Trento, Stockholm, and Bolzano, infringed its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436 relating to snow groomers and their control methods. The Presiding Judge determined that the conditions for extreme urgency were not met and appointed a Judge Rapporteur to convene the applicant for further clarifications regarding documents and search keywords.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries v.Trulines Technologies
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement of its drawing of a book binding machine. The appeal challenged the High Court's order which, while not setting aside the initial expert report, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain an additional expert opinion. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, finding it would cause confusion and prejudice.
Ashish Padia v.Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Ashish Padia, filed a commercial suit against Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd alleging infringement of several registered IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyright related to various bowl products. The court issued an order settling the issues and directing both parties to file their respective lists of witnesses and evidence for further proceedings.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v.Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on a Commercial Court's injunction, which had previously barred Bhole Nath Foods Ltd from using its 'Cheetal' trademark. The court found that there was no phonetic or visual similarity between 'Cheetal' and the respondent's 'Double Deer,' noting that the appellant held a valid registration dating back to 2007. This decision allows the appeal to proceed without immediate restriction on the use of the disputed mark.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg addressed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP concerning international jurisdiction. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 792 100, sought an injunction against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. for alleged infringement relating to Xiaomi smartphones equipped with MediaTek Dimensity processors. The court examined the interplay between Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2), to determine whether the UPC has international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the EU for patent infringements committed in UPC Member States.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, the Local Division Munich addressed competing applications for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril in connection with Edwards' cost application. The court distinguished between Rule 262A RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis parties) and Rule 262.2 RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis the public and third parties), ultimately granting Edwards protection under Rule 262.2 RoP while rejecting the Rule 262A RoP requests of both parties.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed an order by the Controller rejecting its patent application (3623/KOLNP/2013) due to lack of inventive steps. The court set aside the rejection, finding that certain cited prior art documents (D5 and D8) were inadmissible because they were published after the priority date.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Arkose Labs' CAPTCHA‑related patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as the Lim patent and its combinations with Lillibridge and Guthrie.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals because the petition failed to provide adequate claim construction rationale. The Board found that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for 'risk indices' were too ambiguous and insufficiently supported by prior art.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method to detect genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on flawed reasoning regarding Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed a procedural application seeking rejection of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action as manifestly inadmissible, arguing that Suinno's appointed representative was ineligible because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company. The Court considered a prior Court of Appeal order confirming that natural persons with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person cannot serve as its representative before the UPC. The Court held that the lack of valid representation does not lead to inadmissibility of the action, but rather requires granting the affected party an opportunity to remedy the representation deficit.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review on all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’291 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. All nine claims are now under review.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
The PTAB denied Innoscience's petition to institute IPR against Infineon's 9,899,481 B2 patent covering compound semiconductor power components, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 17 challenged claims.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The petition relied on anticipation and obviousness over Garrison and other references, but lacked sufficient particularity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 8,275,827, asserting that key claims are obvious over prior‑art storage systems (Carter, OceanStore, Gibson) and should be invalidated.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method related to detecting genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejections under Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) were flawed, citing lack of reasoning and procedural unfairness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201747006075). The rejection was primarily based on Section 3(i), arguing that the method for detecting tumor-derived cell-free DNA falls under diagnostic processes and is therefore not patentable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only to inventions that 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.R Y Easy Shop Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Play Games 24X7 Private Limited. The plaintiff informed the court that they had identified additional entities infringing their intellectual property rights and would seek impleadment of these parties. The court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 23, 2025, while continuing the existing interim order.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 4108782. Following the permitted withdrawal of the appeals against three contested orders of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Hamburg), 10x Genomics and Harvard College applied for partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal granted the applications, ordering 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, finding that the requirements of Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure were met.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim. The panel decided to separate the proceedings with respect to national parts of the traditional European bundle patent that were not yet ready for decision, particularly those concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), pending the European Court of Justice's decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court reasoned that withholding a decision on the merits for national parts over which it had jurisdiction would unjustifiably delay enforcement of the claimant's potential patent rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1. The Local Division Mannheim addressed the question of which substantive law applies to alleged infringing acts of traditional European bundle patents in relation to the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The court held that the UPCA substantive law applies to acts committed after 1 June 2023 and to ongoing acts that continued after that date, while substantive national laws apply to acts committed before that date. The court also ruled that the right to information under the UPCA encompasses time periods predating the entry into force of the UPCA.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that unusually instituted review of Sandpiper's expired CDN patent. The brief argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations policy and erred in fact finding.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, (Govt. Of India)
In this writ petition, Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya sought judicial intervention to expedite the pending registration of his trademark 'LAKHOTIA DURGA' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that previous opposition had been resolved through a compromise and there was no longer any impediment to registration. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the prayer, issuing a mandamus-like direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.
Ambika Ramesh v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
Ambika Ramesh filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding her registered Ayurvedic product trademarks. Despite inadvertently missing the renewal deadline, she submitted a detailed representation outlining her grievances. The Kerala High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within 60 days, ensuring due process.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , Pfizer AB , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , Pfizer, Inc. , BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude settled their IPRs over flash‑memory patents before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.