Patent Cases

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

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

Page 151 of 424

patent terminated or settled · Mar 6, 2025

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01081

iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
patent · Mar 6, 2025

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

· IPR2025-01089

Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
patent · Mar 6, 2025

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01081

iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent remanded · Mar 6, 2025

Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 12969129

Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
patent · Mar 5, 2025

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000886

This order concerns three appeals filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against orders of the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings against Vizgen concerning EP 4108782. The Court of First Instance had partially granted Vizgen's three requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents. 10x filed appeals against those orders but subsequently applied for withdrawal of all three appeals, to which Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals and noted that no cost decision was necessary since both parties had waived cost claims.
patent pending · Mar 5, 2025

Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 143646290

The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
patent mixed · Mar 5, 2025

Mukesh Chand Khandelwal Trading As M/S Khandelwal Brothers v.M/S S N Biri Factory Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 120119175

The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal filed by Mukesh Chand Khandelwal. The court condoned an eight-day delay in refiling the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. The case challenges the Registrar's decision that dismissed the appellant's trademark application due to a successful opposition filed by the respondent.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 5, 2025

Hindustan Syringes And Medical Device and Ltd. v.Unomedical A/S and Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 34608801

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes against a previous decision by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court set aside the impugned order, which had previously dismissed the opposition filed by Hindustan Syringes regarding the mark 'UNOMEDICAL'. Furthermore, based on the parties' consent, the court also allowed a rectification petition, leading to the cancellation of UNOMEDICAL's trademark registration in Class 10. This decision significantly impacts the validity and scope of the contested brand.
patent mixed · Mar 5, 2025

Epikindifi Software And Solutions Pty Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 95615585

The Delhi High Court addressed rectification petitions filed by Epikindifi Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks LEND.EZEE (No. 6174368 and 6174369). The court noted a procedural error in the filing, specifically regarding the petitioner's name. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a corrected Memo of Parties within one week. Further proceedings were scheduled after granting time for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000890

This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000889

This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Pfizer SA, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer B.V., Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer Oy, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.r.l., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfize v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000888

This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· PGR2025-00043

Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· PGR2025-00043

Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
patent denied · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00799

The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00799

Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
patent · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· PGR2025-00043

Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
patent instituted · Mar 4, 2025

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00799

Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
patent mixed · Mar 4, 2025

University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 55857995

University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 4, 2025

Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Delhi District Court · 194087440

Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 4, 2025

Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 67632601

Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
patent remanded · Mar 4, 2025

Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 144149632

Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 4, 2025

Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 59326781

The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
patent mixed · Mar 4, 2025

M/s.Nirmala Transportation and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 179030831

The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Nirmala Transportation's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's arguments regarding the distinct nature of services (goods transport vs. travel arrangements). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Registrar, contingent upon the appellant providing an undertaking restricting its use to goods transportation.
patent · Mar 3, 2025

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000895

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
patent · Mar 3, 2025

Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000894

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
patent · Mar 3, 2025

Applicant v.Defendant

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000893

1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_142/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 March 2025 Applicant […] represented by: […] electronic address for service: […] Defendant […] PATENT AT ISSUE: […] PANEL/DIVISION: Lo
patent · Mar 3, 2025

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000892

This order was issued by the Court of First Instance in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, following a Court of Appeal determination that the claimant's appointed representative could not validly serve as a representative of the legal person due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers. The judge-rapporteur invited written submissions from the parties on the consequences of this inability to serve. The claimant requested that the representative be allowed to continue or, alternatively, be given time to correct the representation configuration, while the defendant sought rejection of the action as manifestly inadmissible and a default decision revoking the patent in the counterclaim proceedings.
patent · Mar 3, 2025

Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, ***

Copenhagen (DK) Local Division · UPC-000891

This case concerns European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and involves a dispute over the release of evidence-secured CAD files to the applicant and the collection of penalty payments. The applicant, Hybridgenerator ApS, had obtained an evidence preservation order from the Local Division in Copenhagen on August 26, 2024, which was executed by the bailiff court in Svendborg on August 30, 2024. However, the evidence preservation was not completed because the respondents refused to provide usernames and passwords to their cloud-based economic system (e-conomics) and email, in violation of the Court's order.
patent · Mar 3, 2025

GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.

· IPR2025-00677

AfterWords, Inc. filed a preliminary response opposing GetTattle’s IPR petition, contending that the cited prior art does not disclose the patented Survey Module and therefore the petition should be denied.
1 •••150151152•••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 →