Patent Cases

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

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

Page 133 of 424

patent · Apr 22, 2025

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00893

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
patent · Apr 22, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00912

Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2025

Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 69683811

Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 22, 2025

Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 130670198

The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2025

M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · 133340928

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
patent · Apr 21, 2025

Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--

· IPR2025-00878

Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
patent · Apr 21, 2025

Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--

· IPR2025-00878

Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
patent instituted · Apr 21, 2025

Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--

· IPR2025-00878

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

Scandit AG v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000774

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' application for interim measures. The Local Division Munich had previously issued an injunction against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 866 051, which Scandit appealed. After the oral hearing, Hand Held Products withdrew its application for interim measures, and the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings. Scandit sought partial reimbursement of court fees, arguing that the oral proceedings had not yet concluded because no final decision on the merits had been pronounced.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000773

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.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000772

1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

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

This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant, Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co., seeks full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter beyond the original and earlier application EP 3 055 603. The Defendant, Häfele SE & Co. KG, contests the revocation and has filed 80 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The order is a Case Management Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur addressing procedural directions, including the uncontested value of the proceedings set at EUR 500,000.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000770

1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 18/04/2025 Sur l’accès au public (R.262.1(b) RdP) REQUÉRANT LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. Via Alexander Fleming, 22 47122 - Forlì - IT Représen
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00885

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.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00885

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.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00885

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

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

· IPR2025-00885

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.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

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.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

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.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

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.
patent denied · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00783

Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
patent denied · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00783

The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2025

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup 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 remain confidential.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00783

OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00783

Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00859

JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00885

ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00783

OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
1 •••132133134•••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 →