Patent Cases

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

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

Page 143 of 424

patent defendant favorable · Mar 27, 2025

Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs

Bombay High Court · 159500587

The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 27, 2025

Heritage Foods (India) Limited v.Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · 199080806

The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'HERITAGE' registered by Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., citing prior use by Heritage Foods (India) Limited. Despite the petitioner demonstrating substantial sales turnover and long-standing use, the court found evidence supporting the first respondent's honest and bona fide adoption of the mark for edible oils since 1994. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court imposed a crucial condition: the registration remains valid only for edible oils.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2025

Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India

Delhi High Court · 22937323

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000847

This order concerns an application under Rule 262 of the Rules of Procedure by the law firm AMPERSAND Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB seeking access to all written submissions and evidence filed in a completed patent infringement case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO/OROPE concerning EP 2 568 724. The applicant cited a general information interest and a specific scientific interest, as one of its lawyers was working on a commentary on the Unitary Patent system. Panasonic opposed the request as too indefinite and disproportionate, while the defendants did not file observations. The court began its reasoning by applying the guidelines developed by the Court of Appeal in UPC_CoA_404/2023, weighing the effort required for access against the applicant's interests in this particularly complex and voluminous case.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000846

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on March 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, relating to a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sole proprietor of the patent, had filed an application on March 25, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of the respondents at the Cologne trade fair (Köln Messe). The respondents include STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L., a manufacturer of machines for drag finishing and electropolishing, and a second respondent described as a specialist dealer and customer of the first respondent.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

STÄUBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.Respondents

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000845

This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court after the former patent proprietors waived the patent in suit (EP 3 170 639). Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH had filed a revocation action against the patent proprietors, who subsequently waived the patent. The Court of Appeal addressed whether an exception to the general 'loser pays' rule under Article 69(1) EPGÜ applies when a patent proprietor waives the patent at the outset of revocation proceedings without having provoked the action.
patent instituted · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00712

Milestone Entertainment files a post‑institution response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the Kelly reference fails to disclose claim limitations and that Walker is not prior art because the inventors conceived and diligently reduced the invention before Walker’s filing date.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.
patent instituted · Mar 26, 2025

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00772

The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.
patent denied · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00713

Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00712

Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
patent denied · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00712

Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
patent denied · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
patent denied · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 26, 2025

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00697

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 26, 2025

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00697

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00771

Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00683

TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00713

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger

· IPR2025-00773

SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
patent · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
1 •••142143144•••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 →