Patent Cases

POSCO v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns an application by POSCO, a member of the public, seeking inspection of written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against multiple XPENG group companies and their European distributors based on European Patent EP 3 290 200. POSCO, which has filed an opposition against the same patent at the European Patent Office, argued that access to the case file is necessary to analyze ArcelorMittal's claim interpretation in the UPC proceedings, which is directly relevant to the validity discussion in the parallel EPO opposition appeal. The XPENG defendants left the decision to the discretion of the Court.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000919

SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH

The Local Chamber Munich issued an order in evidence preservation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, owned by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. SWARCO alleged that Yunex GmbH had installed patent-infringing collective optics manufactured by Shenzhen Dianming Tech Co., Ltd in LED display panels deployed in the city of Mönchengladbach. The order addressed the procedural question of how to handle the mootness (Erledigung) of an evidence preservation application, holding that Rules 360 and 198.1 of the Rules of Procedure apply analogously, and reserving the cost decision to the main proceedings.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000918

Nokia Technologies Oy ao v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd ao

The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on February 19, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patents EP 2 243 229 and EP 3 799 333, following an oral hearing on February 18, 2025. The applicants, two Nokia group entities responsible for managing and licensing Nokia's patent portfolio, sought provisional measures against three Chinese respondents (Shanghai Sunmi Technology, Sunmi Technology (Yunnan), and Shangtian Technology (Shanghai)) ahead of the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf. The order establishes key legal principles regarding the imminence of patent infringement, particularly in the context of anti-suit injunctions, and addresses the conditions under which security for provisional measures may be exceptionally omitted.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000917

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Systems GmbH

Lionra Technologies Ltd., an Irish patent licensing company, sued Cisco Systems GmbH and its US parent Cisco Systems, Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which protects fast packet switching in wireless networks. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, which the plaintiff defended in auxiliary form with limitations. The case concerns Cisco's Catalyst 9000 series network switches and addresses the interpretation of patent claims regarding latency reduction in processing data packets and headers in wireless network transmissions.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 19, 2025

RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00620

A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.

RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00620

RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000933

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

· IPR2025-00238

BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

patent · Feb 18, 2025

AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent

AYLO Premium Ltd filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, with DISH Technologies L.L.C. as defendant. AYLO subsequently requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, seeking at least EUR 400,000 from DISH Technologies, citing alleged insolvency risks supported by SEC filings of DISH's parent companies. The Court invited further observations from both parties and held an interim conference before referring the matter to a full panel, which issued its order on 18 February 2025.

patent pending · Feb 18, 2025

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others

Delhi High Court · 9413035

The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.

patent remanded · Feb 18, 2025

Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 126828471

Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.

patent pending · Feb 18, 2025

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India

Delhi High Court · 89410277

The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.

patent mixed · Feb 18, 2025

Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks

Delhi High Court · 142894513

Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 18, 2025

Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 156675910

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.

patent mixed · Feb 18, 2025

Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 186273482

The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.

patent mixed · Feb 18, 2025

Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 180763909

The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000932

IMS Robotics GmbH, IMS Robotics Nordic A/S v.Respondent

This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 2 129 956. The Claimant (Per Aarsleff A/S) filed a patent infringement action on 20 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 28 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly sought to withdraw their respective claims and requested partial reimbursement of court fees, with no cost decision sought by either side.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000931

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.

1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 17/02/2025 suivant la conférence de mise en état (R. 105.5 RdP) DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-g

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000930

Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v.Imbox Protection A/S

Imbox Protection A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 276 862, filed an application to preserve evidence and inspect property against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB regarding their EXPRO HUB product. After the Defendants submitted detailed objections demonstrating non-infringement, the Applicant withdrew the application. The Court granted the Defendants' requests for confidentiality protection over Exhibits 17-19 and awarded each Defendant SEK 225,000 in legal costs and expenses, applying a joint ceiling of EUR 38,000 for representation costs.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000929

Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Respondent

This is a rectification order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent related to heart valve prostheses. Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (the defendants in the underlying infringement action) applied under Rule 353 RoP to rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, and obvious slips in the court's decision of 15 November 2024. The court granted several rectifications relating to factual inaccuracies on pages 13, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53, and 59 of the decision, while dismissing the remaining requests.

patent instituted · Feb 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC

· IPR2025-00619

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC

· IPR2025-00618

Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).

patent denied · Feb 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC

· IPR2025-00617

Microsoft Corporation's attempt to invalidate Edge Networking Systems' patent (10893095) regarding Software Defined Networks was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Microsoft failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically concerning 'sandboxing operating system' principles.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 17, 2025

Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited v.Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.

Gujarat High Court · 42696631

The Gujarat High Court allowed a rectification application filed by Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited against Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. The court found that the mark registered by the respondent was deceptively similar to the applicant's long-standing trademark 'Shrinath'. Crucially, the applicant successfully demonstrated prior use of the mark since 1978, establishing significant goodwill and reputation in the travel industry. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the infringing registration, reinforcing the importance of proving continuous prior usage rights.

patent · Feb 15, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.Respondent

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000935

The costs of a preliminary injunction must be settled at the same time as the decision on the merits, since the outcome of the preliminary phase must be considered in the framework of the overall settlement of litigation costs; cost compensation cannot be parcelled out according to the outcome of the various stages of the case but must relate to the final decision on the case as a whole. The outcome of the preliminary phase concerning the application for a preliminary injunction, therefore,

patent · Feb 15, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000934

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000937

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appealed a decision by the UPC Local Division The Hague that denied its request for a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (collectively "Sibionics") for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose monitoring device. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order, finding that the patent claims did not contain added matter, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sibionics from infringing the patent with its GS1 CGM product, along with information and delivery-up orders.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000936

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH

GXD-Bio Corporation sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 346 403 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants filed a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked competence to adjudicate claims for acts predating GXD-Bio's recordal as patent proprietor. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the defendants' arguments concerned standing and substantive ownership rather than jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and allowed an appeal.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00611

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys' Director Review request, arguing the PTAB’s referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that a broad stipulation eliminates any need for duplicate litigation. The petition emphasizes that incorporation‑by‑reference arguments are irrelevant to institution.