Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 104 of 453

patent plaintiff favorable · May 30, 2025

Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v.John Doe And Ors

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited regarding its online gaming platforms. The court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (such as 'PLAYSHIP', 'RUMMY CULTURE') and copyrights related to their website layouts and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific defendants to compel Internet Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to block numerous identified infringing websites and applications.

patent mixed · May 30, 2025

Cy International Private Limited & Anr. v.Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh Singh Auto Agencies & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 166771970

The Delhi High Court addressed an urgent suit filed by Cy International Private Limited against Tejinder Pal Singh Proprietor Of Labh regarding alleged counterfeiting of vehicle spare parts. The court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks and copyrighted packaging/trade dress (the 'YELLOW AND GOLD' design). However, the injunction was carefully tailored to permit the defendant to continue using their own specific registered mark in Class 12, balancing protection with commercial activity.

patent LITIGATION · May 29, 2025

Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000664

Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, in its entirety for all designated UPC contracting member states. The claimant alleged lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.

patent LITIGATION · May 29, 2025

Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000663

Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1 owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The claimant argued lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, primarily based on prior art WO 99/18010. The Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.

patent instituted · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

The PTAB denied Wilus’s request for leave to address recent Director Review decisions and submit additional evidence in five IPRs involving Samsung. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Samsung submits an authorized response opposing Wilus’s request for director review, arguing the examiner erred materially and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The IPR remains instituted pending the Board’s decision.

patent denied · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.

patent · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Wilus Institute’s ’035 Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters and UL‑MU transmissions.

patent instituted · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung Electronics successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, challenging claims related to OFDMA scheduling and parameter switching.

patent instituted · May 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01043

Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.

patent pending · May 29, 2025

Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 181324180

Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.

patent defendant favorable · May 29, 2025

Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 39113539

Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.

patent pending · May 29, 2025

MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 9962969

The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000672

This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1. The parties reached a settlement and jointly declared they had reached a comparison. The plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the action, which the defendants consented to, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and set the value in dispute at EUR 6,000,000.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000671

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000670

This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000669

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection dated February 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent sought to set aside the order, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of patent infringement and had not proven a risk of evidence destruction. The court rejected all of the respondent's arguments, confirmed the original order, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the review proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000668

This appeal concerned an application by Centripetal Limited for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in relation to alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 821 580, which covers methods and systems for efficient network protection. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court revoked the impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division, finding that while Centripetal had demonstrated a plausible case of infringement and a risk of evidence destruction justifying an ex parte order, several of the requested measures went beyond what was necessary. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for a new decision consistent with the Court of Appeal's reasoning.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000667

This is an order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 4 050 804. The court determined that the value in dispute had been largely underestimated given the commercial scope of the action, which targeted all standard-essential 5G mobile devices of the defendants and involved a FRAND rate discussion. The value of the infringement action was set to €4,000,000 on a preliminary basis, requiring the claimant to pay an additional advance on fees of €26,000.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000666

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.

patent LITIGATION · May 28, 2025

Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000665

Revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 relating to apparatus, system, and method for adaptive-rate shifting of streaming content. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) held that the patent was invalid on grounds of added matter, as it extended beyond the content of the parent application. The Court revoked the German part of the patent and ordered the Defendant to bear the costs.

patent · May 28, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.

patent · May 28, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.

patent · May 28, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01059

Dr. Brian P. Black, the inventor of a prior dental isolation mouthpiece, filed a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition against Solmetex’s 11,589,969 patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

1 •••103 104 105•••453

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →