Patent Cases

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

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

Page 111 of 424

patent · Jun 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

· IPR2026-00100

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jun 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

· IPR2026-00100

Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
patent · Jun 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

· IPR2026-00101

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
patent · Jun 11, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01603

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
patent denied · Jun 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

· IPR2026-00101

The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted · Jun 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

· IPR2026-00100

The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 10, 2025

Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights

Madras High Court · P49129458

Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.
patent · Jun 10, 2025

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000629

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
patent · Jun 10, 2025

INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.

· IPR2025-01588

Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
patent · Jun 10, 2025

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01539

Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent denied · Jun 10, 2025

INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.

· IPR2025-01588

The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent interim order · Jun 10, 2025

The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 181394141

The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 10, 2025

Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy v.Mr.P.Moorthy

Madras High Court · 80696347

Petitioners sought to rectify/expunge a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic work photograph of a pump assembly, arguing that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act renders it invalid because the article was already registered as a design. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Pump Assembly itself, not the photograph, was registered as a design and that the photograph did not meet the requirements of a design.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 9, 2025

Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal

Calcutta High Court · P110649500

This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
patent · Jun 9, 2025

Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000630

1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 9 June 2025 APPLICANT Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB Widenmayerstr. 47, 80538 München, Germany represented by Moritz-Melchior Bloser PART
patent defendant favorable · Jun 9, 2025

Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal

Calcutta High Court · 160746025

This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
patent · Jun 8, 2025

Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01389

Google petitions an IPR to invalidate 16 claims of Telcom Ventures' 11,937,172 patent covering smartphone NFC financial transactions, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Waters, White, and Smith. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000636

This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000635

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000634

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000633

This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000632

CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000631

The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., brought an infringement action against multiple AYLO entities and related companies alleging literal and, alternatively, equivalent indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680, which concerns a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. The defendants filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed key legal questions regarding the doctrine of equivalents, the legal interest in isolated removal of dependent subclaims via nullity counterclaims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests under Rule 30.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01026

Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.

· IPR2025-01107

MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 6, 2025

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01117

Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01118

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
patent · Jun 6, 2025

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
1 •••110111112•••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 →