Patent Cases

Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000772

LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a third-party request for access to case files. LIFE365, an Italian company involved in a parallel infringement and revocation proceeding in Italy regarding the same European patents (EP'230 and EP'669), sought access to the file of the UPC proceedings between HP and LAMA France. The court granted partial access, allowing LIFE365 to view only the pleadings related to the validity discussion (in redacted form where necessary), while denying access to documents concerning the infringement discussion, including the technical report.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000771

Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG

This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000770

LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. – Access Request in Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023)

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning a third-party access request by LIFE365 (Italian companies) to the case file in an infringement action between Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) and LAMA France regarding European patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. LIFE365 sought access to use arguments and evidence from the UPC proceedings in parallel Italian proceedings before the Court of Genoa. The Judge-Rapporteur granted partial access limited to pleadings concerning validity discussions, while rejecting access to infringement-related documents including the technical report.

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). They argue the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm their interests if disclosed.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 7,784,058. They jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, making termination permissible.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, making termination permissible under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that should not be disclosed publicly.

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled all disputes over Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Apr 18, 2025

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter‑partes review dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and VirtaMove have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 virtualization patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion seeks to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and restrict access.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00852

Microsoft and virtualization startup VirtaMove settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2025-00850 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 patent. The Board is asked to end the inter partes review and keep the agreement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over Patent 7,784,058. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00855

Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b), citing the sensitivity of the information.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00854

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00850

Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm them if disclosed.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties claim disclosure would harm their business interests.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.