Patent Cases

Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000858

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

With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_425/2024 ACT_42211/2024 App_54919/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS) 1. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., NO.1 Jisheng Road, Jianshan New Zone, 314415 Haining City, Zhejiang

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000857

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

This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.

patent denied · Mar 19, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

patent denied · Mar 19, 2025

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

patent interim order · Mar 19, 2025

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.

R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks

Calcutta High Court · 7186449

R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order by The Controller General of Patents and Designs, which had refused its patent application. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patent Act, citing concerns over public order or morality due to the nature of tobacco products. The appellant argued that the process—a method for preparing a sugar-containing syrup from Nicotiana species stalk (tobacco flavourant)—should not be rejected simply because all forms of tobacco are injurious. The court directed the Controller to take necessary instructions before further proceedings.

patent remanded · Mar 19, 2025

Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 142926675

The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected a patent application related to microfluidic apparatuses for quantifying component concentration. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked independent application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of reasoned justification.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 19, 2025

Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · 28744218

The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.

patent mixed · Mar 19, 2025

Grena Limited v.Axon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · 161806349

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000873

Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao

This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000867

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

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an objection (Einspruch) filed by the defendants under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 2 903 267. The court addressed four key preliminary issues: whether alleged incompatibility of the UPC Agreement with EU primary law constitutes a ground for objection, whether violations of the EU Charter or ECHR can support such an objection, whether the plaintiff must proactively prove its representative's authority regarding the opt-out withdrawal, and the standard for establishing jurisdiction. The court ruled against the defendants on all four points, finding that the objection should be rejected.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000866

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

This procedural order concerns an objection filed by Roku under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure against a patent infringement action brought by Dolby International AB concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258. The defendants argued that the legal framework of the Unified Patent Court is incompatible with EU primary law (TFEU and TEU) and that Art. 267 TFEU is violated, also raising alleged breaches of Art. 47(2) of the EU Charter and Art. 6(1) ECHR. The court rejected these arguments, holding that alleged incompatibility with EU primary law is not a ground for objection under Rule 19(1), and that such an objection cannot be successfully based on violations of the EU Charter or ECHR.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000863

Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent

This is a procedural order concerning two consolidated infringement actions (UPC_CFI_73/2024 and UPC_CFI_408/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 866 051. Both parties jointly requested 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 withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, cancelled the oral hearing, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fee to the defendant because the interim proceedings had not yet concluded at the time of withdrawal.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000862

PRINOTH S.P.A. v.XELOM S.R.L.

Prinoth S.p.A., a world leader in the production of snow groomers and tracked vehicles, sought an ex parte order for preservation of evidence, inspection, and seizure against Xelom S.r.l., an innovative start-up belonging to the Technoalpin group. Prinoth alleged that Xelom's newly developed electric snow groomer (Snow Cat), which had been deployed at several ski resorts in Austria, South Tyrol, Trento, Stockholm, and Bolzano, infringed its European patents EP1995159 and EP2507436 relating to snow groomers and their control methods. The Presiding Judge determined that the conditions for extreme urgency were not met and appointed a Judge Rapporteur to convene the applicant for further clarifications regarding documents and search keywords.

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.

· IPR2025-00692

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.

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.

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