Patent Cases

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

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

Page 129 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2025

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 40891917

Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
patent mixed · Apr 30, 2025

Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 197814319

Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2025

ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 106547680

ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2025

Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others

Jharkhand High Court · 70593309

The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
patent mixed · Apr 30, 2025

M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)

Madras High Court · 52988671

The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000742

This order concerns an application by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision in a patent revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court confirmed its prior reasoning that an application to set aside a default decision is an internal procedural remedy not suitable for a decision on the merits, and therefore does not require a separate decision on costs. The Court held that such costs can be claimed and assessed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation proceedings that concluded with the default decision.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Scandit Inc, Scandit AG v.Respondent

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000740

Hand Held Products Inc. brought an infringement action against Scandit AG and Scandit Inc. concerning European Patent EP4163816, and Scandit filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before substantive adjudication, the parties reached a settlement and both filed applications to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Division in The Hague granted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by each claimant.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG M

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000739

ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action on 18 October 2024 before the Paris Local Division against multiple XPENG entities and related automotive distributors based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. On 7 April 2025, following a settlement, ArcelorMittal applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and requested reimbursement of 60% of the procedural fees paid. The defendants confirmed the settlement and requested a stay of proceedings under Rule 295 RoP.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000738

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an application for a cost decision against Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, seeking reimbursement of EUR 112,300.00. The respondents objected to the amount, certain travel expenses, and requested a stay of proceedings pending an appeal against the decision on the merits. The Court rejected the request for a stay, holding that the mere existence of a pending appeal does not justify suspending cost proceedings, as this would allow the unsuccessful party to indefinitely delay cost decisions.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00046

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC

· IPR2025-00950

Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00916

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00891

Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC

· IPR2025-00838

Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
patent · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Apr 29, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00046

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
patent instituted · Apr 29, 2025

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
1 •••128129130•••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 →