Patent Cases

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)

This case concerns appeals by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the impugned orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for information contained in three Confidential Licence Agreements, including a five-year licensing bar on the designated natural persons from each party. The Court of Appeal also set a penalty of €1,000,000 per culpable breach of the confidentiality order.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000113

ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG

This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division Paris. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that ALD France was a 'straw man' for its parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH), which was already a party in parallel infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings before the Munich Local Division, rendering the action abusive and creating lis pendens. The court confirmed the order rejecting the objection, holding that ALD France's independent business activity made it a separate party from its parent, and that related companies are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because of a parent-subsidiary relationship.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000112

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS

The defendants (Amazon entities) requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings concerning EP2803191. The claimant did not raise substantive objections, merely referring to its previous arguments in similar cases. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000111

Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declined to decide at that stage on Merz's request to keep a newly submitted piece of evidence (Exhibit 823) confidential from public access under Article 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP. Merz had uploaded the exhibit under the HC (highly confidential) code without filing a simultaneous application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. The Court held that R. 262.2 RoP requests concern future public access requests, not restrictions on disclosure to the opposing party, and that uploading under HC code without a R. 262A RoP application lacks legal basis.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000110

Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust

This case concerns cross-appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality measures ordered in underlying patent infringement proceedings. Sun Patent Trust sued Vivo entities seeking determination of FRAND licence terms for 4G+ technologies and filed applications for protection of confidential information, ultimately requesting an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo's employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of named Vivo employees in the access circle, modified the orders to include internal support staff, and permitted use of confidential information for settlement discussions.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000109

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)

This case concerns an appeal by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the lower court's orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for certain Confidential Licence Agreements, with access restricted to external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party, subject to a five-year licensing bar. The Court also imposed a penalty of €1,000,000 for each culpable breach of the confidentiality order.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000108

Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited

The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Nordmeccanica S.p.A.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited concerning EP 3067437 (titled 'improved vacuum coating method'). The court found that, since both parties (an Italian defendant and an English claimant) had no connection with German, and English was the predominant language in the relevant technology field, the position of the defendant was decisive in the balancing of interests, warranting a change to the language of the patent.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000107

Decision of the President of the UPC Court of Appeal on Petition for Review of Registrar's Decision (EPLC Rules, Rule 12.1) v.Ex Parte

A European Patent Attorney applied on 29 August 2025 to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the one-year time limit is not discriminatory and that the applicant's qualification could not be deemed an appropriate qualification under Article 48(2) UPCA.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00232

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp’s U.S. Patent 11,495,875 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references teaching dual‑sided coil layouts, via connections, and parallel circuitry.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Pogona, LLC

· IPR2026-00221

Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757, alleging that the pneumococcal vaccine claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Porro, Mekalanos, and Siber. The petition argues examiner error and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00201

Beatbot Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' 11,880,207 patent covering autonomous pool cleaning robots. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of fifteen claims.

Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

· IPR2026-00233

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging Milwaukee Electric’s 2023 tape‑measure patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over earlier tape‑measure patents. The petition seeks cancellation of all 12 claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00231

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00200

Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 24, 2026

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00202

Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaner patent, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over a combination of existing underwater cleaning robots and lack written‑description support for key controller features.

M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · 39865934

The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 23, 2026

Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000117

Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against the Sophia Genetics group, alleging infringement of four European patents relating to liquid biopsy technology by the 'MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHiA DDM' test. The Court rejected the application, finding that EP'073 contained added matter over its original PCT application, and that Guardant Health failed to demonstrate infringement of EP'066 and EP'986 with a sufficient degree of certainty. Guardant Health was ordered to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros in interim costs.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 23, 2026

Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000116

This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 23, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00203

The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00229

Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00203

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00227

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 11,932,230, which covers vehicle gear‑selection control. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00223

Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.