Patent Cases

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

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

Page 112 of 453

patent · May 11, 2025

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00054

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.
patent · May 11, 2025

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00052

Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.
patent · May 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.

· IPR2026-00085

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
patent instituted · May 11, 2025

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00094

The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
patent LITIGATION · May 9, 2025

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000707

Unified Patent Court decision.
patent LITIGATION · May 9, 2025

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., and Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000706

This procedural order concerns a panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's decision dismissing the Defendants' application to order the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4092759. The Hamburg Local Division rejected the Defendants' request for panel review, finding they had not presented concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost order in China would be unduly burdensome, while granting leave to appeal on the basis that questions regarding the scope and requirements of Rule 158 RoP security applications are of significance beyond the individual case.
patent LITIGATION · May 9, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000705

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01311

Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01311

Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
patent · May 9, 2025

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· PGR2025-00078

Terumo BCT seeks to invalidate Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent (U.S. 12,171,916) by arguing all 22 claims are obvious, lack written description, and are abstract calculations. The petition requests cancellation of the entire patent.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01522

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’682 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid, Ltd.

· IPR2025-01521

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of SnapAid’s ’325 patent on obviousness grounds, citing a broad set of prior‑art references covering real‑time image‑quality assessment.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01519

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
patent · May 9, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01412

BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01311

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
patent · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.

· IPR2025-01520

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’702 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing multiple prior‑art camera‑technology references.
patent instituted · May 9, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01311

The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
patent pending · May 9, 2025

Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 133044713

The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
patent mixed · May 9, 2025

Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.M/S Italian Shoes Co. & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 185195662

In this ongoing intellectual property dispute, Christian Louboutin SAS sought various procedural reliefs in the Delhi High Court against M/S Italian Shoes Co. The court granted several applications, including allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granting exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the suit's urgent nature. Crucially, the order also addressed the core infringement claim, setting up the case for permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement, copyright violation of shoe images, and passing off concerning the signature 'RED SOLE' style.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Sanofi SA and Others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and Others (STADA Nordic ApS and Others)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000716

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-000715

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U. and others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000714

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000713

An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000712

This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1, titled 'Kreiselpumpenaggregat' (centrifugal pump assembly), directed at heating circulation pumps. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent by offering and distributing heating circulation pumps in Germany, France, and Italy, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for revocation. The defendant was ordered to cease infringement, provide information, render accounts, recall infringing products, and pay provisional damages of EUR 64,000.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000711

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000710

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000709

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., requested an extension of the deadline for filing its reply brief by one week until 19 May 2025, due to delayed access to the unredacted version of the Statement of Defence and the late service of the Counterclaim for Revocation. The court granted the extension, finding it justified under the circumstances, and noted that the Defendants did not oppose the request.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2025

Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000708

Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· PGR2025-00064

Samsung (on behalf of Apple) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references. No secondary considerations are presented.
patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· PGR2025-00064

Apple seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the review and find all claims unpatentable.
1 •••111112113•••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 →