Patent Cases

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000701

Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG

This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. Following a main decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and maintaining the patent in restricted form, the plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 84,950 in costs. The defendant objected that the costs were disproportionate given the limited infringement period and modest economic significance. The court rejected the objections, finding the defendant failed to provide substantiated arguments on disproportionality, and ordered full reimbursement of the capped amount.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000700

Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.

This case concerned European Patent EP 3 536 712 B1, owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and exclusively licensed to Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, which claims a second medical use of a PCSK9 inhibitor for reducing lipoprotein(a) levels in specific patient populations. The Claimants alleged that Amgen's marketing of Repatha® (evolocumab) infringed the patent, while Amgen counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimants failed to prove infringement of the second medical use claim while the Defendants failed to establish that the patent claims lacked novelty or inventive step.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000699

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.

patent instituted · May 13, 2025

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

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2025

Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00976

The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the original denial, leaving the patents in force.

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

Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2025

Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 13, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

patent terminated or settled · May 13, 2025

GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

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

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-00976

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC

GlobalFoundries has filed a petition to invalidate 19 claims of Oak IP’s U.S. Patent No. 10,090,395, asserting that prior patents Grupp ’483 and Jammy anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims covering metal‑semiconductor interface layers.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

patent instituted · May 13, 2025

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Audio Pod’s ’907 patent covering synchronized audiobook files, arguing they are obvious over standards and prior publications such as the DTB SMIL specification and McCartney’s work.

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

Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.

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