Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 159 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Feb 19, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy & Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd & Others

Nokia sought an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court to prevent Sunmi Group entities from seeking Anti-Suit Injunctions in China or elsewhere that would impede Nokia's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court granted the interim measures, prohibiting the Sunmi respondents from filing or pursuing ASI proceedings, with penalties of up to €250,000 per day for violations, and ordered service at the EuroCIS trade fair in Düsseldorf without security.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 19, 2025

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

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000917

Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems, Inc. and its German subsidiary Cisco Systems GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 2 201 740 B1, which relates to fast packet processing in wireless networks. Cisco filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, leaving the patent in its granted form, and ordered the plaintiff to bear 40% and the defendants 60% of the costs.

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.

patent · Feb 19, 2025

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.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 19, 2025

RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00621

RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 19, 2025

RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00621

Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.

patent · Feb 19, 2025

RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00620

RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.

patent · Feb 19, 2025

RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00621

RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Feb 19, 2025

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 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 LITIGATION · Feb 17, 2025

Aylo Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.

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

Aylo Premium Ltd brought a revocation action against EP 3 822 805 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) and requested that DISH Technologies L.L.C. provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 400,000 under R. 158 RoP, citing insolvency risks within the DISH/EchoStar group. The Court rejected the request, finding that Aylo had not met its burden of proof given the lifting of the going concern qualification, the group's receipt of over USD 8 billion in new funding, and EchoStar's irrevocable declaration to reimburse Aylo's legal costs up to EUR 400,000.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 17, 2025

Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000932

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.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 17, 2025

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

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000931

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The order addresses contested legal points regarding the interpretation of patent claims, the evidential value of a TESCAN ANALYTICS report, and the value of the action, while organizing the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for March 13, 2025. The defendant Laser Components SAS did not attend the conference and was informed that a default decision would be rendered regarding it.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 17, 2025

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

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000930

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.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 17, 2025

Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Rectification of Decision)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000929

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 · 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.

patent · Feb 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC

· IPR2025-00617

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition against Edge Networking’s ’095 patent covering distributed software‑defined networking. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Vasell and related OSGi literature and opposes discretionary denial.

patent · Feb 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC

· IPR2025-00618

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

patent instituted · Feb 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00619

The PTAB denied Microsoft's Inter Partes Review against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence showing how prior art teaches or suggests the required 'sandboxing operating system.'

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 LITIGATION · Feb 15, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)

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

This procedural order from the Central Division (Milan section) of the Unified Patent Court addressed EOFLOW's application for cost reimbursement following the rejection of Insulet's request for a preliminary injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327. The Court dismissed EOFLOW's cost application without examining the substance, holding that when a preliminary injunction is followed by proceedings on the merits, cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the overall merits proceedings rather than at the PI stage.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 15, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation (Cost Compensation Proceedings)

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

This procedural order concerns EOFLOW's application for reimbursement of costs incurred in defending against INSULET's request for a provisional injunction (PI) based on alleged infringement of EP 4201327, which the Court had rejected on 22 November 2024. Since the PI proceedings were followed by separate revocation and infringement proceedings on the merits, the Court held that cost compensation must be assessed at the conclusion of the merits proceedings as a whole, rather than parceled out by stage. EOFLOW's application for costs was therefore dismissed without examination of the substance.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 14, 2025

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000937

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.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 14, 2025

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000936

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.

patent denied · Feb 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00611

The PTAB denied a petition for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00611, which upheld Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent. The denial applies to three related IPRs as well.

patent · Feb 14, 2025

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.

1 •••158 159 160•••453

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 →