Patent Cases

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

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

Page 120 of 424

patent · May 21, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-01017

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · May 20, 2025

Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000687

Chint appealed an order of the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000 by 6 June 2025, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of JingAo's European patent EP 2 787 541 relating to a solar cell. Chint requested that its appeal have suspensive effect or, alternatively, that the appeal proceedings be expedited. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that Chint had failed to demonstrate that providing security constituted an undue burden or that expedition was warranted.
patent · May 20, 2025

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000686

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and several healthcare distributors. The order addresses an application by Defendants 1, 2, and 6 (Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS) for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 20, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
patent · May 20, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00996

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00996

Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
patent denied · May 20, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
patent · May 20, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00988

Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
patent denied · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.
patent · May 20, 2025

Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.

· IPR2025-01015

Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
patent · May 20, 2025

OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC

· IPR2025-01019

OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00995

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
patent instituted · May 20, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00988

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
patent denied · May 20, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00988

The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
patent remanded · May 20, 2025

Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 40498264

The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
patent defendant favorable · May 20, 2025

Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · 160097113

Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
patent interim order · May 20, 2025

Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 22666382

Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
patent mixed · May 20, 2025

ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 22349520

ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
patent · May 19, 2025

Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000691

This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
patent · May 19, 2025

Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000690

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
patent · May 19, 2025

Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000689

This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
patent · May 19, 2025

3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000688

Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
1 •••119120121•••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 →