Patent Cases

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2025

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.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

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.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

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.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

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

patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

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.

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 · Apr 10, 2025

ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Respondent

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

1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_698/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 10/04/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) ALIUD PHARMA GmbH (Applicant) - Gottlieb-Daimler-Str. 19 - 89150 - Laichingen - DE Represented b

patent · Apr 10, 2025

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

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000804

This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109 B1, which is in force in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and Slovenia. The plaintiffs, Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich (along with third-party counterdefendant Alexander Christ), allege that the defendant, Knaus Tabbert AG, infringes the patent. The decision addresses two key legal questions: the interpretation of product-by-process claims and the jurisdiction over financial compensation claims for the use of a published European patent application.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000812

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach in the case heading. The court partially granted the application, correcting the clerical error regarding the struck-through phrase but rejecting the request to add another attorney as it did not constitute an obvious inaccuracy.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000811

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., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschlan v.Respondent

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 9 April 2025 Application: 17158/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Qui

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000810

Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent

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.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000809

BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech SE, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH v.Respondent

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.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000808

Epson Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, which is essential for the Opus Audio Codec. The main infringement proceedings are brought by Dolby International AB against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding televisions and electronic devices running Android TV version 5.0 or later. The applicant, Epson Deutschland GmbH, is a defendant in a parallel infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division concerning projectors and Android TV devices, and seeks public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000807

Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. v.Respondent

Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000806

Pfizer AB , Pfizer SAS, Pfizer, Inc. , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV v.Respondent

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) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. 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 while rejecting the request for a default decision.

Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01514

Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.

patent mixed · Apr 9, 2025

Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01513

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

Advanced Electric Machines Group Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 84698555

This appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning an improved electrical sub-assembly for electric/hybrid vehicles, which aimed to enhance Switched Reluctance Machines (SRMs). The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the invention. The court found significant procedural flaws in the respondent's decision, including failure to issue a proper Second Examination Report and citing foreign documents without translation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

patent pending · Apr 9, 2025

Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 15701878

The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.

patent mixed · Apr 9, 2025

Fashnear Technologies Private Limited v.John Doe/S And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 106150772

In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction reliefs sought by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited against John Doe and others. The court issued sweeping directives requiring entities like NPCI, telecom service providers, and Meta Platforms to take immediate action—including blocking UPI IDs, suspending phone numbers, and removing infringing social media content—to protect the plaintiff's trademarks ('MEESHO') and copyrights. This order sets a strong precedent for how IP holders can leverage court intervention against digital infringement across multiple platforms.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000813

Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.

1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· IPR2025-01374

Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.

patent denied · Apr 8, 2025

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

· IPR2025-01346

BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

· IPR2025-01346

The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.

patent denied · Apr 8, 2025

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

· IPR2025-01346

Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.

Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01379

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.