Patent Cases

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

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

Page 119 of 453

patent · May 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D printer force‑detection patent. The challenger alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references, including Warren, Dunn, Calderon and an open‑source RepRap forum thread.
patent · May 2, 2025

Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.

· IPR2025-00510

Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent instituted · May 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00532

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 16 claims in a dispute involving Stratasys's 3D printing technology. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art, specifically Warren.
patent instituted · May 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00531

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
patent pending · May 2, 2025

Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 27208670

The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
patent LITIGATION · May 1, 2025

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

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000728

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in proceedings for interim measures, after the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. Neither party objected to the addition within the given deadline.
patent LITIGATION · May 1, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000727

Insulet Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 4 201 327 relating to fluid delivery devices (insulin patch pumps), sought provisional measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. for allegedly infringing the patent with its EOPatch and GlucoMen Day Pump products. The Milan Central Division (Court of First Instance) rejected the application, finding claim 1 likely lacked novelty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Court of First Instance improperly delegated claim construction to an expert, and granted the provisional measures against EOFLOW across multiple UPC Contracting Member States.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000736

In an appeal from a revocation action concerning EP 3 498 115, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted a stay of proceedings at the request of Juul Labs, with the agreement of NJOY. The stay was ordered pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal, where oral proceedings had been scheduled for 17 October 2025. The court found that a decision from the Boards of Appeal could be expected rapidly relative to the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000735

Procedural order issued by the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action. All parties agreed that service on all defendants should be deemed uniformly effected on 30 April 2025 to avoid service abroad and associated translations. The court granted the defendants' request, establishing uniform deadlines for preliminary objections and statements of defence across all defendants.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000734

This order concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's request to replace three of nine members of the confidentiality club established under Rule 262A RoP in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 476 616. The defendants (Kodak entities) opposed the request, arguing that the circle of persons with access to confidential information should not be expanded. The Mannheim Local Division allowed the request in part, permitting two replacements whose substitutes already had access to confidential information from parallel proceedings, but rejecting the third replacement.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000733

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Court addressed the Defendant's late application to make a sample available for inspection, noting that the Defendant had not provided reasons for submitting the sample after the closure of written proceedings and only one week before the hearing. The Court indicated it was considering disregarding the late submission under R. 9.2 RoP and would decide on the issue at the oral hearing.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

Juul Labs International Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000732

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 504 990, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties agreed to the stay, and the EPO Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral hearings scheduled for 14 November 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the expected date of the Court of Appeal oral hearing.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000731

The judgment text is not available as the order has been temporarily removed and is to be replaced. No factual details, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the provided text.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

AGFA NV v.Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and Others

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000730

AGFA NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 relating to a method for decorating natural leather using an achromatic base coat and inkjet-printed colour image, sued nine Gucci entities for infringement concerning the 'Pikarar Collection.' The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with costs split 40% to the Claimant and 60% to the Defendants.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2025

The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000729

The Walt Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2449782 was granted. InterDigital opposed the request, arguing no significant disadvantage had been shown. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00936

The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00935

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung argues that the prior‑art Lee and Choudhury teach the same BSS‑color disabling features claimed in the ’163 patent, and urges the PTAB to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review of the institution decision.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00935

Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00928

Geotab has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR on patent 8,456,365. The petition argues the Director’s ‘settled expectations’ analysis is unlawful, arbitrary, and exceeds statutory authority.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00929

Geotab seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, arguing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority. The petition highlights conflicts with the Celgene precedent and procedural violations under the APA.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00928

The USPTO Director denied Geotab's request for rehearing after a discretionary denial and a denial of institution in IPR2025-00928.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00936

Samsung contests the patent owner’s arguments that the Lee and Choudhury references do not teach the claimed BSS‑color disabling features. The petitioner seeks denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, keeping the IPR instituted.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00929

The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00935

Samsung’s request to delay IPR institution by invoking recent Director Review rulings was denied. Wilus sought a short deadline extension to submit new evidence, while Samsung wanted a longer pause pending district‑court claim constructions. The PTAB emphasized statutory timing limits.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00936

The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00936

Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
patent · Apr 30, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

The PTAB denied a Director Review request, leaving the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz's bone‑conduction headphone patent instituted.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00843

Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
1 •••118119120•••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 →