Patent Cases

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

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

Page 132 of 453

patent · Apr 14, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00820

ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent instituted · Apr 14, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00821

ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.
patent instituted · Apr 14, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00819

ClearCorrect Operating successfully instituted the IPR against Align Technology's dental appliance patent by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board found sufficient motivation in prior art references to combine them and support the claims under Section 103.
patent instituted · Apr 14, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00820

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
patent instituted · Apr 14, 2025

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00818

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.
patent instituted · Apr 14, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00806

Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 13, 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-000798

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
patent · Apr 12, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01604

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Apr 12, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01602

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,274,325 covering robotic mapping and navigation. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 18 claims.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2025

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000803

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000802

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000801

This is a procedural order from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan concerning a revocation action filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. against Insulet Corporation's European Patent EP4201327, which relates to fluid delivery devices for insulin management. The court dismissed EOFLOW's request for further written submissions, declared US patent 6656159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late-filed prior art, and ordered EOFLOW to provide EUR 500,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2025

Ericsson GmbH and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000800

Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 11, 2025

TGI Sport Suomi Oy (formerly Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (formerly Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l. (formerly Supponor Italia S.r.l.), and Supponor España SL v.AIM Sport Development AG

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000799

This appeal concerned orders of the Helsinki Local Division granting AIM Sport Development AG leave to amend its Statement of claim under R. 263 RoP and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under R. 305 RoP in a patent infringement action. The appellants (TGI entities) challenged the orders on grounds of inadmissibility and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion and that the scope of review on appeal regarding such discretionary decisions is limited.
patent instituted · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
patent instituted · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.
patent · Apr 11, 2025

Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.

· PGR2026-00010

Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
patent · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.

· PGR2026-00010

The USPTO Office issued a notice detailing multiple institution decisions across various IPR and PGR proceedings.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00109

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00109 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.

· IPR2026-00102

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 11, 2025

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.

Calcutta High Court · 54286831

Takeda Pharmaceutical appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for Novel Protein Kinase Inhibitors (Brigatinib). The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to consider crucial supplementary data demonstrating Brigatinib's superior selectivity and therapeutic efficacy.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2025

ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Accord Healthcare Group & Novartis AG (Application for Access to Documents under Rule 262 RoP)

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000805

ALIUD PHARMA GmbH applied for access to documents filed in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action between the Accord Healthcare group and Novartis AG concerning EP2501384. After the main proceedings were settled and closed, Novartis withdrew its opposition to the access request, subject to redaction of personal data. The Court granted the application and instructed the Registry to produce redacted copies of the requested documents within 15 days.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2025

Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH & Erwin Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert AG

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000804

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action concerning EP 3 356 109 B1, directed at a frame for a vehicle with structural parts made of foam resin. The plaintiffs, who had developed the patented technology under a development agreement with the defendant (a caravan/motorhome manufacturer) but without any licensing arrangement, alleged that the defendant used their technology in models including the 'Travelino', 'Deseo', and 'Azur'. The court found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and awarded damages and compensation, while also addressing the interpretation of product-by-process claims and compensation under Article 67 EPC.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2025

Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000812

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2025

Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000811

This procedural order concerns patent EP 3 296 274 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants, belonging to three competing groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG Electronics) and all represented by the same counsel, applied for separation of proceedings to avoid sharing sensitive supply chain information among competitors. The court rejected the applications, holding that any potential conflicts arose solely from the defendants' choice to be represented by identical counsel and that it was the representative's obligation to manage such conflicts internally.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2025

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000810

This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2025

Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others (Pfizer and Others)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000809

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
1 •••131132133•••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 →