Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 14 of 453

patent · Jan 16, 2026

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

· IPR2026-00220

TSMC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,076,735, asserting that all six claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Chuang, Lin, and Brask. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jan 16, 2026

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00217

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Moskowitz Family’s spinal fusion patent, asserting that Palmatier anticipates the invention and that combined references render the remaining claims obvious.
patent · Jan 16, 2026

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00216

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 16, 2026

Viacyte Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 104105041

Viacyte Inc appealed a rejection order from the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding an invention for a bioreactor used to culture primate pluripotent stem cell-derived cell aggregates. The Controller rejected the application, finding it lacked inventive steps and failed disclosure requirements. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 16, 2026

Vishal Choudhary v.SNPC Machines Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 75158798

Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling subject brick-making machines, which were patented by SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. The appeal primarily raised issues of territorial jurisdiction and the merits of patent infringement. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction in favor of the plaintiff (SNPC).
patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2026

Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000127

The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2026

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000126

This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2026

GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000125

This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2026

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000124

This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 15, 2026

Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2026-00157

Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent denied · Jan 15, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00137

The PTAB, in a Director Review, denied institution of Samsung's inter partes review against Headwater's patent, citing the timing of a parallel court proceeding as a decisive discretionary factor.
patent denied · Jan 15, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00138

The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
patent denied · Jan 15, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00137

The PTAB Director Review denied institution of the IPRs against Headwater Research’s patents, finding the parallel proceeding’s trial date too close to the expected final decision.
patent · Jan 15, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00138

Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
patent · Jan 15, 2026

Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2026-00157

Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
patent · Jan 15, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00137

Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
patent pending · Jan 15, 2026

Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 152548193

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.
patent · Jan 14, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC

· IPR2026-00183

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 4 of Qomplx’s 2022 cloud‑telemetry patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art references describing virtual appliances and cloud agents. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent pending · Jan 14, 2026

Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 138300332

The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
patent dismissed · Jan 14, 2026

Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 119736276

Bayer Healthcare Llc filed an appeal seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 1788/DELNP/2007. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the patent term had expired.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2026

ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000130

This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2026

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000129

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted the claimant's application for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure after the claimant missed the deadline for filing a cost determination application under Rule 151. The underlying decision of October 10, 2025 had split costs 60/40 between claimant and defendant and partially revoked European Patent 3 215 288. The court held that while lack of legal knowledge generally does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, in this specific case the claimant's misjudgment of the legal situation could not be attributed to it despite legal representation. A dissenting opinion by Judge Brinkman argued the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible for lack of legal interest.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2026

Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000128

Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2026

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00022

Treace Medical and Fusion Orthopedics settled their patent and trademark lawsuit over bunion‑correction technology. The settlement was announced in a press release and filed as an exhibit in the PGR proceeding.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.

· IPR2026-00208

Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.

· IPR2026-00209

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00022

Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.

· IPR2026-00211

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 55 claims of Damaka’s ’116 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on obviousness grounds over prior‑art references such as Abuan, Eisenberg, Beilis, and Guzman.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.

· IPR2026-00210

Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging Damaka's U.S. Pat. 11,930,362, which covers modular video‑conferencing software. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel claims 1‑28 and 75.
patent · Jan 13, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.

· IPR2026-00207

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 28 claims of Damaka’s U.S. 9,270,744 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 •••131415•••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 →