Patent Cases

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

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

Page 124 of 424

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 plaintiff favorable · May 9, 2025

Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M/S Universal Corporation & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 103476328

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against Universal Corporation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, noting the long history and exponential growth of the 'Moti Mahal' brand since 1920. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill, the defendant was immediately restrained from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL'.
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 mixed · May 9, 2025

Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Sipsnap Soda Llp & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 2914526

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 9, 2025

Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)

Delhi High Court - Orders · 106431610

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
patent · May 8, 2025

STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent

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 · May 8, 2025

ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH

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 · May 8, 2025

Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB

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 · 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 · May 8, 2025

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

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000712

This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
patent · May 8, 2025

Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France

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 · May 8, 2025

Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS

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 · May 8, 2025

Polidoro S.p.a. v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000709

This procedural order concerned a request by the Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., to extend the deadline for filing its reply brief in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant sought a one-week extension because the Statement of Defence was initially served in redacted form, with access to the unredacted version only granted later. The court found the extension justified and extended the deadline until 19 May 2025.
patent · May 8, 2025

Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Respondent

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.

· PGR2025-00063

Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
patent · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01254

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.
patent · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
patent · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01253

Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
patent · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01253

Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
patent · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
patent denied · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01254

The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01253

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
patent · May 8, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01250

Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01378

Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
patent · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01267

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
1 •••123124125•••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 →