Patent Cases

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

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

Page 140 of 424

patent · Apr 3, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00424

The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED

Madras High Court · 48040615

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
patent remanded · Apr 3, 2025

Bts Research International Pty Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai

Calcutta High Court · 52802766

The petitioner appealed against the rejection of its patent application, which claimed a method for generating tri-hybrid cells. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing that the hybrid cell fell within the definition of naturally occurring organisms or biological processes. The High Court found this conclusion unsubstantiated, noting the artificial and human intervention required to create the synthetic tri-hybrid cells.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited v.M/S. Tega Industries Limited

Orissa High Court · 105368927

This revision petition challenged an order rejecting a petition filed by M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited (the defendant in the original suit) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerned a patent infringement suit (C.S. No.01 of 2019) where the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court upheld the original order, finding that the suit was properly filed based on prior judicial directions and the defendant's business location.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 3, 2025

Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · 129556156

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The court quashed the order that deemed his word mark application 'LABAPEN' abandoned due to failure to respond to an opposition notice. Citing previous precedent, the court held that service via email alone is insufficient when the applicant cannot prove receipt, thereby protecting the substantive rights of trademark applicants. Consequently, both the application and the opposition were restored for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 3, 2025

R.Dilip Kumar v.The Registrar of Trademarks, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited

Madras High Court · 143927103

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by R.Dilip Kumar against the Registrar of Trademarks, quashing an order that deemed his trademark application 'PIRALEX' abandoned. The court emphasized that the statutory right of the applicant is at stake and ruled that service of opposition via email alone, without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating the response period. Consequently, both the trademark application and the opposition were restored to the file, allowing the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond on merits.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000831

This order concerns generic procedural applications filed by Microsoft Corporation, the defendant in an underlying infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, seeking a decision by default against the claimant. Microsoft argued that Suinno failed to provide security for costs within the court-ordered time limit and that the facts justified dismissing the infringement action, dismissing the application to amend the patent, and revoking European patent EP 2 671 173 in its entirety. Suinno did not oppose a default decision against itself, instead seeking confirmation of the patent's validity, a finding of infringement, and payment of €2,000,000 under 'invoice 1331'. The Court addressed the legal framework for default decisions under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000830

Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174. The court ordered the separation of proceedings regarding the UK national part of the patent-in-suit because the ECJ decision in C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte), which addressed a fundamental question of European law on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation, was only delivered after the oral hearing. The court found it inappropriate to delay the entire decision or hold a second oral hearing, and instead separated the UK-related claims to be dealt with in separate proceedings.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000828

This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants argued that because the claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., is domiciled in China, enforcement of any cost decision against it would be highly difficult or nearly impossible. The claimant opposed the motion, contending that basing a security order solely on the nationality or domicile of a party would constitute a priori discrimination not supported by any source of law, and that judgments from numerous countries including Germany have been recognized and enforced in China under Article 267 of the PRC Law of Civil Procedure.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S, Ascendis Pharma A/S v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000827

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning a preliminary objection filed by Ascendis Pharma in an infringement action brought by BioMarin Pharmaceutical regarding European patent 3 175 863 (Variants of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide). Ascendis challenged the validity of BioMarin's withdrawal of opt-out and argued that BioMarin failed to establish the court's competence by not sufficiently alleging infringing acts. The presiding judge rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, finding the opt-out withdrawal valid and that BioMarin had sufficiently shown actual and threatened infringement occurring in Germany.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000826

Fujifilm Corporation sued three German Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 511 174 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging novelty, inventive step, and alleging added matter. The Mannheim Local Division found infringement by the defendants' SONORA XTRA-3 product, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, destruction and recall orders, and an interim costs award of EUR 300,000.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000825

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 April 2025 Applications: 8314/2025 8850/2025 8319/2025 8313/2025 8316/2025 8317/2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Co
patent · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000824

Fujifilm Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, by selling SONORA X, SONORA XTRA-2, and SONORA XTRA-3 products in Germany and the UK. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The Local Division Mannheim revoked the patent entirely in Germany, dismissed Fujifilm's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Fujifilm to pay EUR 300,000 in interim costs.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00030

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 2, 2025

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Court decision.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00030

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.

· IPR2025-00511

Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute

· IPR2025-00522

Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00560

Court decision.
patent · Apr 2, 2025

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00525

Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
patent instituted · Apr 2, 2025

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00030

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
patent instituted · Apr 2, 2025

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00560

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
patent instituted · Apr 2, 2025

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00525

Axon and Dedrone successfully instituted an IPR against Airspace Systems regarding claim 21 of patent 10713959. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art reference Beard. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to trial, focusing on obviousness in low-altitude aircraft identification systems.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 2, 2025

Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)

Delhi High Court · 120168806

Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 2, 2025

Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 150021357

Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 2, 2025

Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited v.Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 148832281

The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition filed by Glanbia Performance Nutrition Limited against Hercules Nutra Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of an identical trademark registration from the register. The court found that Glanbia was a prior user and adopter of the 'ON' mark for nutritional supplements, possessing immense goodwill in India since 2003. Given the deceptive similarity of the respondent's mark (including copying the swoosh arrow) and the identity of the goods, the registration was deemed dishonest and liable to be cancelled.
patent · Apr 1, 2025

Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France s.a.i. v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000838

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_54/2024 and UPC_CFI_396/2024) involving European patent EP 2 391 947. Samsung, with Headwater's consent, requested an extension of the deadline to file comments on three pending applications, and the Presiding Judge granted the extension from 3 April 2025 to 8 April 2025, closing the four associated workflows.
patent · Apr 1, 2025

MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000837

This case concerned an application for interim measures filed by MANN+HUMMEL GmbH against SOTRAS - S.R.L. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 762 219. Before any decision on the merits was rendered, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the claimant withdrew its application with the defendant's consent. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, ordered the decision to be entered in the register, and addressed the question of court fee reimbursement.
patent · Apr 1, 2025

Amycell LLC v.***

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000836

1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/04/2025 regarding R.320 – re-establishment APPLICANT E - - – (Defendant in the main action, hereinafter: “Defendant”) Represented by Michal
1 •••139140141•••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 →