Patent Cases

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.

This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000995

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

Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00497

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 23, 2025

EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.

· IPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00461

Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

patent denied · Jan 23, 2025

Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00516

Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00462

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent instituted · Jan 23, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00147

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00147

The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.

patent remanded · Jan 23, 2025

Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 76113795

Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001002

Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001001

NJOY Netherlands B.V v.VMR Products LLC

Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001000

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH

This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000999

P.T.S. Machinery B.V. v.Mammoet Holding B.V.

The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/01/2025 regarding the preserving of evidence APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam – NL Represented

patent terminated or settled · Jan 22, 2025

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC

· IPR2025-00485

NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.

Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.

· IPR2025-00492

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 22, 2025

Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.

· IPR2025-00492

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patent terminated or settled · Jan 22, 2025

Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00428

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.

patent mixed · Jan 22, 2025

Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00428

Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.

Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr v.Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Ors

Delhi High Court · 77033535

The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr, to amend their original plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that introducing subsequent trade mark registrations, evidence of enhanced goodwill, and relevant judicial records did not change the nature or character of the existing dispute. This decision allows the plaintiffs to strengthen their case by incorporating new statutory rights acquired after the suit's inception.

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-001007

KIPA AB v.Respondent

An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001006

PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001005

air up group GmbH v.Respondent

This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.