Patent Cases

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

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

Page 134 of 424

patent instituted · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00873

Amazon initiated an IPR against Datonics LLC's patent (US 10984445) concerning profile-based behavioral targeting. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable as obvious over prior art combinations.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 18, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00885

The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Genevant Sciences GmbH, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Respondent

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000782

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
patent · Apr 17, 2025

TP-Link Deutschland GmbH v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000781

This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 353 901 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation brought by Atlas Global Technologies GmbH against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered a stay of the proceedings against Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Respondent

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000780

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Moderna Belgium S.R.L. (Applicant, defendant 9) in the main proceedings) - Avenue Marnix 23 - 1000 - Brussels - BE Re
patent · Apr 17, 2025

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000779

Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH v.Promosome LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000778

Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000777

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. The plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation against three Vantiva entities. By agreement of both parties, the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure, based on the plaintiff's application of April 9, 2025.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000776

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer AB v.Promosome LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000775

Promosome LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00865

TSMC seeks Director review of a denied institution decision, arguing that the ’747 patent was erroneously issued and threatens U.S. national‑security‑critical chip production. The petition highlights material examiner errors, lack of settled expectations by the patent owner, and the impact of the 2025 government shutdown on the Fintiv analysis.
patent denied · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
patent denied · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00848

The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00864

An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00879

TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00864

TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00884

Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
patent · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00865

TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent instituted · Apr 17, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-00847

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Apple Inc. successfully challenged Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s patent claims, leading to an institution decision where the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 11 claims. The grounds for unpatentability centered on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), utilizing multiple prior art references including Lan, Wang407, and Chen.
patent dismissed · Apr 17, 2025

Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.IMO Holding Gmbh

Madras High Court · 29264742

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) challenging the validity of Patent IN254458, arguing that it lacked novelty and did not comply with relevant provisions of the Patents Act. However, the counsel for the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they had reached a settlement with the contesting respondent.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 17, 2025

The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 76058194

The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
patent · Apr 16, 2025

BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP. v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000786

This case concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 479 680 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The defendants filed an application under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking leave to submit further written arguments regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the first plaintiff in a parallel US Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding involving a related patent (US 8,868,772). The defendants contend that the plaintiff's arguments before the US PTAB regarding features corresponding to features 1.2 and 1.3 of the patent in suit contradict the plaintiff's infringement assertions in the present proceedings.
patent · Apr 16, 2025

Emboline, Inc. v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000785

1. The one who files a counterclaim for revocation (Art. 32 (1) e) UPCA) is an “Applicant” according to Art. 69 (4) UPCA. 2. Anyone who claims that he would be driven into insolvency in case of an injunction to desist, confirms that his financial position gives rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_628/2024 ACT_58638/2024 App_8962/2025 2 APPLICANT (CLAIMANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCE
patent · Apr 16, 2025

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000784

This procedural order concerns a dispute over the commencement of the reply deadline in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs (Heraeus) sought an extension of their reply deadline to May 2, 2025, arguing that members of their Confidentiality Club only gained access to the unredacted pleadings on April 1, 2025, rather than March 17, 2025 as the court had assumed. The defendant (Vibrantz) requested clarification that the defendant's reply period begins April 22, 2025 and written proceedings end no earlier than May 22, 2025. The court addressed the question of when time limits begin to run in the context of a provisional Confidentiality Club and the impact of vacation absences of its members.
patent · Apr 16, 2025

Siltronic AG v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000783

This case concerns an order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, directed at a 'shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends.' The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., sought evidence preservation measures against the respondents, Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG. Respondent 1 (Siltronic AG) filed an application under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review of the inspection and evidence preservation order. The Chamber issued headnotes clarifying that evidence preservation orders may secure evidence of individual infringing acts, that Rule 196.1 RoP is not an exhaustive catalog of measures, and that such orders may include seizure of delivery notes and invoices where justified by the applicant's evidence preservation interest.
patent · Apr 16, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00863

AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 16, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00863

AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
patent denied · Apr 16, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00862

AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
1 •••133134135•••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 →