Patent Cases

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000967

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent

The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000966

STADAPHARM GmbH v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V., ACCORD HEALTHCARE S.L.U., ACCORD HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Novartis AG

This is a preliminary order concerning an application by STADAPHARM GmbH under Rule 261.1(b) RoP seeking access to written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings (UPC_CFI_698/2024) pending before the Milan Central Division. The main proceedings involve a declaratory non-infringement action brought by three Accord Healthcare Group companies against Novartis AG regarding Novartis's patent EP2501384 (relating to Nilotinib). STADAPHARM claimed a specific interest in accessing the documents because Novartis had obtained a preliminary injunction against STADAPHARM before the Munich Regional Court based on the same patent. The order addresses procedural questions regarding the scope of Rule 262.1(b) access applications, the lodging of non-digitally signed submissions under Rule 4.1 RoP, and the hearing of parties under Rule 264 RoP.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000965

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Respondent

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000963

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent

This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 3, 2025

Oracle America, Inc. v.Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr

Delhi High Court · 90962399

The Delhi High Court allowed Oracle America's petition seeking rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark, JAVATPOINT/. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Oracle's well-established 'JAVA' mark, which has been used since the 1990s. Given the identical target consumer base in educational services (Class 41), the court ruled that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark to ride on Oracle's goodwill and reputation, leading to its removal from the Trade Marks Register.

patent · Feb 1, 2025

Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025

Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025

Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00379

IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00379

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.

patent · Feb 1, 2025

Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

patent instituted · Feb 1, 2025

Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000968

Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.

This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 548 648, which relates to a mill for crushing/grinding material, particularly wood chips. Both parties are providers of forestry machinery. The plaintiff, Rematec GmbH & Co KG, as the proprietor of the patent, alleged that the defendant, Europe Forestry B.V., infringed the patent by selling mills marketed as 'Europe Grinders' and 'Europe Chip Mills.' The defendant raised a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim held an oral hearing on November 27, 2024, and rendered its decision on January 31, 2025.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00558

Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00535

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00535

Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00489

Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.

Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut

· IPR2025-00523

Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025

Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut

· IPR2025-00523

Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00535

The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00488

Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00558

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00488

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation

· IPR2025-00564

Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.

Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut

· IPR2025-00523

Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.

Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00490

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.