Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 105 of 424

patent · Jul 1, 2025

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· PGR2025-00016

Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Jul 1, 2025

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00381

Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
patent instituted · Jul 1, 2025

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· PGR2025-00016

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
patent instituted · Jul 1, 2025

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00381

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.

Delhi High Court · 122074101

The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 1, 2025

Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors

Delhi High Court · 55578710

Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
patent remanded · Jul 1, 2025

Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 98802826

The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.
patent dismissed · Jul 1, 2025

Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited

Delhi High Court · 167660632

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
patent remanded · Jul 1, 2025

Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 110909439

Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 72776436

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl

Madras High Court · 71533000

YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 92941118

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 186423875

Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000593

This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

Acer Computer GmbH v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000592

This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000589

This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB for public access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings UPC_CFI_181/2024 (related to European Patent EP2661892 owned by Nokia Technologies Oy), in which HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. was the claimant and Nokia Technologies Oy was the defendant. The main proceedings had been concluded on 27 March 2025 following the withdrawal of the action. The applicant sought access to better understand how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings, arguing that such access supports professional advice by UPC representatives. The defendant Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a specific personal interest and had not sufficiently demonstrated a general interest justifying access.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC

· IPR2025-01223

Amazon and its AWS affiliate filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against DivX’s 11,611,785 video‑streaming patent. The Board has not yet institutioned the case, and DivX does not oppose the withdrawal. The motion seeks termination of the proceeding for efficiency.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01164

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC

· IPR2025-01222

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC

· IPR2025-01223

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jun 30, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01221

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent denied · Jun 30, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01221

The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
patent instituted · Jun 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01164

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent pending · Jun 30, 2025

Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · 92085014

The appeal challenges a previous judgment where the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent questioned the maintainability of this appeal.
patent · Jun 27, 2025

BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000597

This is a procedural order in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790, filed by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as granted and through eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address the determination of the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, procedural questions regarding patent amendments, and clarification of the parties' requests.
patent · Jun 27, 2025

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000596

Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
patent · Jun 27, 2025

Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000595

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
patent · Jun 27, 2025

Solectric GmbH, DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000594

This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

· IPR2025-01215

Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
patent · Jun 27, 2025

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
1 •••104105106•••424
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 →