Patent Cases

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

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

Page 124 of 453

patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Court decision.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-00925

Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00920

uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00856

Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00857

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Allani’s ’058 patent covering mobile web navigation. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues indefiniteness of key claim language.
patent instituted · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00857

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
patent denied · Apr 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid

· IPR2025-00856

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent instituted · Apr 24, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00762

OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 24, 2025

Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India

Madras High Court · 109950834

This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
patent remanded · Apr 24, 2025

Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · 183687612

Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000759

This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd and Others

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000758

This is a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680, which relates to video streaming technology. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants including Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Aylo Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The order at hand is a preparatory ruling by the judge-rapporteur structuring the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for May 7-8, 2025, identifying key issues for discussion including claim construction, the formulation of the plaintiffs' requests, and questions regarding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000757

Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000756

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European patent n° 2 403 266. Samsung, as applicant, requested a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all Defendants, citing that service had not yet been effected on Defendant 1 in Korea and that other Defendants had been served on different dates. The parties agreed to a virtual service date of 5 May 2025, and the Presiding Judge granted the request, setting the deadline for the Statement of Defence to 5 August 2025 for all Defendants uniformly.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000755

Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000754

The defendants (Nintendo) requested that certain sales and profit figures in their Statement of Defense and Exhibit BP08 be declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP, with access restricted to two named persons from the claimant. The claimant (Malikie Innovations) sought to extend access to two additional employees and challenged the scope of the confidentiality order regarding information obtained from third parties. The Court granted the confidentiality request, extended access to the two additional claimant employees, and held that the claimant bears the burden of verifying whether third parties disclosing such information are bound by confidentiality agreements.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2025

Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000753

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 23, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent · Apr 23, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 23, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
patent · Apr 23, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
patent · Apr 23, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00823

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
patent instituted · Apr 23, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00919

Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
patent remanded · Apr 23, 2025

Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 188839165

Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 23, 2025

Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another

Delhi High Court · 42324548

Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
1 •••123124125•••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 →