Patent Cases

patent terminated or settled · Mar 13, 2025

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00714

Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00714

Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG

· IPR2025-00721

Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00728

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 hemostasis valve patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 8,275,827, asserting that key claims are obvious over prior‑art storage systems (Carter, OceanStore, Gibson) and should be invalidated.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00715

Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.

patent instituted · Mar 13, 2025

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00714

Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.

Madras High Court · 115741907

University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.

Madras High Court · 37795927

The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method related to detecting genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejections under Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) were flawed, citing lack of reasoning and procedural unfairness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Madras High Court · 184473926

University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The University of Washington appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201747006075). The rejection was primarily based on Section 3(i), arguing that the method for detecting tumor-derived cell-free DNA falls under diagnostic processes and is therefore not patentable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only to inventions that 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

Madras High Court · 60314411

The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method to detect genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on flawed reasoning regarding Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.

patent · Mar 12, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation

· IPR2026-00164

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.

patent · Mar 12, 2025

Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC

· IPR2026-00151

Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.

patent mixed · Mar 12, 2025

Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.R Y Easy Shop Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 80462741

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Play Games 24X7 Private Limited. The plaintiff informed the court that they had identified additional entities infringing their intellectual property rights and would seek impleadment of these parties. The court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 23, 2025, while continuing the existing interim order.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000881

Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited

This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000880

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court ordered a 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings, and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000879

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The panel ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while allowing the remaining parts of the case to proceed to a decision on the merits without waiting for the pending ECJ decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte).

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000878

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.

Hurom Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 028 981 relating to a juice extractor, sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for patent infringement regarding slow juicers marketed under the name 'AUTO10' in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The Local Division Mannheim addressed key intertemporal law questions regarding the applicable substantive law (UPCA vs. national laws) for acts before and after the UPCA's entry into force on 1 June 2023. The court found infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, granted an injunction, ordered information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from channels of commerce, and awarded EUR 56,000 in interim legal costs.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000877

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on March 11, 2025, granting partial reimbursement of court fees to 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College following the withdrawal of their three appeals against orders of the Hamburg Local Division concerning EP 4108782. The court applied Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000876

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The court ordered the separation of proceedings with respect to the national parts of the patent-in-suit concerning Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to be dealt with in separate proceedings, while the main proceedings concerning UPC member states could proceed to a decision on the merits.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000875

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings concerning EP 4108782. After allowing withdrawal of the appeals, the court granted 10x's requests for partial reimbursement of court fees based on Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, awarding 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of the written procedure and 20% for two appeals withdrawn before completion of the oral procedure.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000874

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCO

The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor. The Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' infringed the patent. The court established key principles on the intertemporal applicability of substantive law under the UPCA versus national laws, holding that UPCA applies to ongoing infringing acts continued after 1 June 2023, and that information rights under the UPCA extend to pre-entry-into-force periods. The court found partial infringement and ordered remedies including injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce.

patent denied · Mar 11, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2026-00095

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.

patent denied · Mar 11, 2025

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00093

Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00093

Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.

Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2026-00095

Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that unusually instituted review of Sandpiper's expired CDN patent. The brief argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations policy and erred in fact finding.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00093

Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.

Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation

· PGR2026-00009

Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.