Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5101–5200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2025 APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) - Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam - NL Represented by Ricardo Dijkstra RELEVA
Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 2 043 492. Both parties informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement and consented to the withdrawal of their respective claims, waiving all asserted claims. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals and ordered that each party receive a 60 percent refund of the court fees for their respective actions.
Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing the Claimant's request under Rule 9.3 ROP for an extension of time periods. The court denied the main request for a three-week extension but granted a one-week extension, taking into account the Chinese New Year holidays affecting Defendants 1, 2, and 4's parent company in China. The relevant time limits were extended until 3 March 2025 for all Defendants to maintain harmonisation.
POSCO v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.
Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
AYLO Premium Ltd filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, with DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendant. AYLO subsequently requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, seeking at least EUR 400,000 from DISH Technologies, citing alleged insolvency risks supported by SEC filings of DISH's parent companies. The Court invited further observations from both parties and held an interim conference before referring the matter to a full panel, which issued its order on 18 February 2025.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.
IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g
Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S
Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation's attempt to invalidate Edge Networking Systems' patent (10893095) regarding Software Defined Networks was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Microsoft failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically concerning 'sandboxing operating system' principles.
Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited v.Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a rectification application filed by Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited against Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. The court found that the mark registered by the respondent was deceptively similar to the applicant's long-standing trademark 'Shrinath'. Crucially, the applicant successfully demonstrated prior use of the mark since 1978, establishing significant goodwill and reputation in the travel industry. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the infringing registration, reinforcing the importance of proving continuous prior usage rights.
Cadbury Uk Limited v.ITC Limited
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks be formally included in the proceedings. This procedural step ensures all relevant parties are involved in the ongoing litigation between Cadbury UK Limited and ITC Limited. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner liberty to carry out necessary informal amendments to their case filings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 5th, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH
GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys' Director Review request, arguing the PTAB’s referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that a broad stipulation eliminates any need for duplicate litigation. The petition emphasizes that incorporation‑by‑reference arguments are irrelevant to institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner offers no statutory grounds, misstates parallel litigation, and has waived procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 9‑12 of Maxeon’s 8,222,516 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB rulings.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
Parle Elizabeth Tools Private Limited v.Pacific Tools Private Limited
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation of patent number 420765, which was granted in favour of respondent no.1. The court allowed an application for exemption from filing copies and listed the main petition for further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Shabina Kundial & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited successfully petitioned for the rectification and removal of a deceptively similar trade mark registered by Shabina Kundial & Anr. The petitioner, which operates under the renowned FACES brand in beauty and wellness, demonstrated extensive prior use, goodwill, and reputation associated with its marks. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established FACES marks and was adopted dishonestly to ride over the petitioner's reputation, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v.Askhok Kumar & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order concerning trademark infringement, the court granted an exemption from advanced service to allow the plaintiffs (Panasonic) to seek urgent interim relief. The core decision was the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises. This action aims to confiscate counterfeit packaging materials bearing the 'ANCHOR' trademark, thereby protecting Panasonic's goodwill and preventing further infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of the ’626 LED patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Shimadzu Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Shimadzu Corporation appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647043103), which concerned a surrogate biomarker for evaluating amyloid beta peptide accumulation. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it related to diagnostic methods. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, finding that the appellants were prejudiced by not having access to a key judgment before the initial hearing.
The Trustees Of Columbia University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its amended patent claims (1-19) for 'METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF AMYLOID DEPOSITION DISEASES' under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the amendments were supported by the complete specification, citing relevant case law. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.
Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd v.P.Sundaram
The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'WAHEED.' The court held that because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory notice regarding the impending expiry of the registration, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal despite the lapse of time. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative failure by the Registry can override strict procedural deadlines.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited
This is a scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. The order sets dates for the interim conference (6 October 2025) and the oral hearing (10 December 2025), and requests the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondents
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned whether a European Patent Attorney who is also a party to proceedings must be represented by an independent representative under Rule 8.1 RoP. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position (such as Chair of the Board) cannot represent a legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB 14 days to appoint authorised representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Ona Patents SL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 12 February 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1. The order addresses an application under Rule 262A RoP to protect confidential information, classifying certain information contained in the unredacted Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defense and related exhibits as confidential, and restricting access to designated representatives of the Claimant.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich ruled on a jurisdiction objection raised by the defendants in an infringement action concerning EP 3 685 783. The court held that the Munich chamber was competent to hear the infringement case, rejecting the defendants' argument under Article 33(2) EPGÜ that the Düsseldorf chamber should have jurisdiction. The court reasoned that at the time the infringement action was filed on November 20, 2024, no parallel action under Article 32(1)(a), (c), (f), (g) or (h) was pending before another first-instance chamber, since the prior interim measures application had already been appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Meril Italy srl v.Respondents
This appeal concerned an order of the Central Division Paris (14 October 2024) granting Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB access to pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings between Meril Italy and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Meril Italy challenged the validity of the access request, arguing that Respondent 1's self-representation was impermissible under Art. 48 UPCA and that he could not validly represent SWAT Medical AB as its Board Chair. The Court of Appeal held that representation is a matter of public policy that may be examined at any time, and that neither self-representation nor representation by a person holding a high-level management position is permitted before the UPC.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 8, 9, 13, and 17‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367, which cover a zero‑profile expandable intervertebral spacer. The petition relies on the Palmatier patent as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Supponor Oy v.Respondent
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by AIM Sport Development AG (formerly AIM Sport Vision AG) against five defendants regarding European Patent No. EP3295663. The Helsinki Local Division had initially dismissed the action for lack of competence, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back. The present procedural order addresses AIM Sport's applications under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claims and grounds, and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant to the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Respondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts, erlassen am 10.02.2025 KLÄGERIN BSN Medical GmbH, Schützenstraße 1-3, 22761 Hamburg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Christian Stoll Hogan Lovells International LLP, Alstertor 2, 20095 Hamburg, Deutschla
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar v.Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
The appellant filed an RTI seeking comprehensive information from ICMR regarding the legal framework, ownership, and formalities associated with protecting a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool developed by undergraduate students. The Commission found that the PIO had disclosed available public domain information, but directed ICMR to provide the Appellant with its detailed Intellectual Property Policy for complete transparency.
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v.Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to submit crucial documentation related to its '6E' trademark registration. The plaintiff sought leave under the CPC to place on record certificates that were only obtained after the initial filing of the suit, arguing they were not in their possession at the time of litigation commencement. Given the defendants had no objection, the court granted the application, allowing the evidence to be formally included in the ongoing trademark dispute.
ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against four ASUS entities. Before the written procedure concluded, Dolby withdrew its infringement action following an out-of-court settlement, and the ASUS defendants sought to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. Both parties agreed that each would bear their own costs and requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The court issued its decision in accordance with the parties' jointly expressed wishes.
XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, in which Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against several ASUS entities. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its infringement action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The court issued an order confirming the withdrawals, that each party bears its own costs, and granting a 60% partial reimbursement of the court fees paid upon filing.
Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A., ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich addressed an objection by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) entered into force and during the period of an opt-out. The court held that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA, Art. 2(g), and Art. 3(c) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on such pre-UPCA and opt-out period acts of use. The court further clarified that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate legal concepts that must be assessed independently of one another.
SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This case concerns a cost-setting decision by the Local Chamber Munich following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy, sought reimbursement of approximately €91,568.76 in costs from Tiroler Rohre GmbH, who had been ordered to bear the costs after withdrawing the interim measures application. The respondent argued the costs were excessive and requested a cap of €30,000, contending that the number of representatives and hours billed were disproportionate to the case's complexity.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’889 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based autonomous‑vehicle control.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01574 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This decision allows the case to proceed to merits review.
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited v.Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited against Sammaan Capital Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement because the competing mark 'SAMMAAN' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' marks, and both parties operate in identical financial services sectors (granting loans). Despite initial challenges regarding the authenticity of the plaintiff's registration certificates, the court confirmed their validity through a status report from the Trade Marks Registry, thus upholding the injunction.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid patent, arguing obviousness over Okano and combinations with Withenshaw and Oringer. The petition also asserts that the claims require steps to be performed in order.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Respondent
This preliminary procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, on February 7, 2025, in proceedings brought by Dainese S.p.A. against multiple defendants including Alpinestars entities and retailers. Dainese sought an extension of its deadline for filing its Defence to Counterclaims for revocation and its Reply to the statements of defence filed by Defendants 2 and 6, from February 13, 2025 to February 27, 2025, citing coordination with an EPO oral hearing scheduled for February 13, 2025. The Court granted the extension, finding that the same coordination reasons previously accepted for Defendant 1 applied equally to the Claimant, and emphasized the principle of parity between attacking and defending parties.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom's 8,385,913 patent, asserting that the claimed server‑mediated device‑identifier exchange is fully anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering a server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices. The petition relies on Perttila and Swartz as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of a proximity‑beacon patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as Mgrdechian and its combinations with Kaplan, Kulakowski, Eagle, and Behrens.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent on proximity‑based wireless communication, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.