Patent Cases

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

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

Page 153 of 424

patent instituted · Mar 1, 2025

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00342

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000898

NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

International N&H Denmark ApS, Virdia Inc. v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000897

This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000896

The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 28, 2025

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS

· IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00601

Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00602

The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.

· PGR2025-00035

Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
patent · Feb 28, 2025

Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

· IPR2025-00603

Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025

TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2025-00653

The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025

TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2025-00650

TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
patent interim order · Feb 28, 2025

Cellectis v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 45825351

Cellectis appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method involving T-Cells. The appeal sought permission to file amended claims and complete specification. The court examined whether these amendments were permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act.
patent · Feb 27, 2025

SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Respondent

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000901

SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited's European Patent EP 2043492 before the Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, prompting the claimant to request withdrawal of the revocation action and closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the claimant.
patent · Feb 27, 2025

Fapa Vital AG v.Respondent

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000900

Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 27, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00627

KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
patent · Feb 27, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00627

KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
patent · Feb 27, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC

· IPR2025-00627

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
patent · Feb 27, 2025

HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00664

HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
patent instituted · Feb 27, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00673

Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
patent defendant favorable · Feb 27, 2025

Navya Network Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 116824910

Navya Network Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE'. The Controller raised objections regarding lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(k). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was obvious to a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA) based on cited prior art.
patent remanded · Feb 27, 2025

Magneti Marelli S.P.A. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 8078860

Magneti Marelli appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application (No. 420/CHE/2009) on grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art citations. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to discuss their submissions distinguishing the invention from the cited prior arts. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unsupported by reasons and set it aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2025

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 173530176

TVS Motor Company appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a Vehicle Monitoring System. The appellant argued that certain prior art documents did not qualify as prior art or failed to disclose the claimed invention's features, particularly data transmission capabilities when the vehicle is switched off. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2025

Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. v.Kamal Bansal

Delhi High Court · 55310731

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. against Kamal Bansal, directing the removal of the registered trademark 'VKG'. The court found that 'VKG' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark 'VKC', which had been used since 1985 in respect of footwear. Crucially, the court noted that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual use of the impugned mark, leading it to conclude that the registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
patent defendant favorable · Feb 27, 2025

Raghuvar (India) Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · 156956415

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision regarding its opposition to the 'JAI HANUMAN' trademark. Although the appellant argued that their predecessor had prior, pan-India use and that a crucial assignment deed was ignored, the court ultimately found no infirmity in the original order. The rejection hinged on the lack of evidence demonstrating the appellant's actual use of the mark within South India, thereby upholding the Registrar's decision to restrict the scope of the new registration.
patent · Feb 26, 2025

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000905

This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns two consolidated proceedings involving Heraeus Electronics and Heraeus Precious Metals as plaintiffs against Vibrantz GmbH regarding alleged infringement of European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation) in Germany, Italy, and France. The order addresses the correction of a prior order from December 2, 2024 regarding the replacement of the counter-defendant in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, and considers an application under Rule 362 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the German part of the patent. Vibrantz had raised objections regarding the timeliness and standing of the replacement request.
patent · Feb 26, 2025

Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000904

This procedural order concerns the defendant's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further pleading in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office, which fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent CN201480013981.1 based on the same prior art references. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf, through Presiding Judge Thomas acting as Rapporteur, denied the application, finding it was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, that the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and that allowing late submission would prejudice both the court's and the plaintiff's preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
1 •••152153154•••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 →