Patent Cases

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000868

Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Doytec Automation Ltd.

Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. before the Local Division in The Hague. DDT alleged that Doytec was exhibiting a seed counting machine (C-1012) at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in the Netherlands that reproduced the teachings of claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The court granted the order, finding that DDT had established a credible, reasonably available case of infringement and met the requirements for an ex-parte evidence preservation order.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000867

Sun Patent Trust v.Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V.

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendants' objection (Einspruch) under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 903 267. The defendants had argued that the UPC lacks jurisdiction because the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law (TEU and TFEU), relying on CJEU Opinion 1/09. The court held that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie allegation of infringement suffices without proof of actual or imminent infringement.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000866

Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc. and Roku International B.V.

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants (Roku) filed an opposition challenging the UPC's jurisdiction, arguing that the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU primary law and that the UPC's court structure violates their right to a lawful judge due to Brexit-related issues with the London section of the Central Division. The court rejected the opposition, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a valid ground for opposition under Rule 19(1), and that for establishing jurisdiction, a prima facie claim of infringement suffices without requiring proof of actual infringement.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000865

Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, deciding to proceed with both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and set dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure deadlines.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000864

Sun Patent Trust v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an opposition filed by the defendants against a patent infringement action. The court rejected the defendants' opposition, which challenged the UPC's jurisdiction on grounds that the UPCA is incompatible with EU primary law, and held that such arguments are not valid grounds for opposition under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged infringement for jurisdictional purposes and that proof of the representative's authorization for the opt-out withdrawal was not required unless contested.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000863

Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG

Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) relating to European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly applied for leave to withdraw the main action and counterclaim without a cost decision, and the defendant additionally sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fee paid for the counterclaim.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000862

Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom S.r.l.

Prinoth S.p.A., a leading Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, filed an application before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Milan seeking an order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative startup developing an electric snow groomer (Snow Cat). Prinoth suspected that Xelom's vehicle reproduced the teachings of its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436. The Court granted the order inaudita altera parte, authorizing inspection of Xelom's and its parent company Technoalpin's premises, seizure of a sample vehicle, and forensic copying of digital evidence, subject to a security deposit of €75,000.

patent denied · Mar 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

patent terminated or settled · Mar 18, 2025

OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.

Apple Inc. v.--

· IPR2025-00600

Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.

patent denied · Mar 18, 2025

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.

· IPR2025-00727

T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s ’345 patent on digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over Wright, Booth, Leyendecker and Jin. The petition requests institution and cancellation of all eleven claims.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.

· IPR2025-00692

Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.

· IPR2025-00691

Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.

AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.

· IPR2025-00707

AROMA 360, LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Air Esscentials' fragrance‑diffuser patent, asserting that claims 1 and 3‑8 are obvious over prior‑art diffusers (Goubet, Kaiser, Gao‑2). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.

· IPR2025-00705

Aroma360 seeks to invalidate claims 7‑9 and 11 of Air Esscentials’ 9,527,094 patent on essential‑oil diffusers, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-00658

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.

Apple Inc. v.--

· IPR2025-00600

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Proxense’s ’989 patent covering smartphone biometric authentication, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.

· IPR2025-00706

Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation