Patent Cases

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001052

Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality requests in proceedings related to European Patent EP 4 201 327. Menarini sought to extend confidentiality protections over certain technical information in its Statement of Response to the appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's requests for confidentiality (Requests I–III) as superfluous, holding that the existing non-appealed confidentiality order from the Court of First Instance continued to apply to the appeal proceedings.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001051

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent

This case concerns an application by ITCiCo Spain S.L. to set aside a default decision delivered on 16 September 2024 in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 796 333. The applicant argued that its default in failing to file a defence to revocation was due to its long-standing European Patent Attorney being unavailable because of illness. The respondent, BMW, objected that the applicant had not sufficiently explained its default or taken reasonable efforts to meet the deadline. The Court interpreted Rule 356(2) RoP to require the applicant to demonstrate that the default was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure beyond their control.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001050

A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Respondent

The Court of Appeal dismissed Menarini's request to extend the deadline for filing its Statement of response, holding that the request was superfluous because Rule 301.2 RoP provides for an automatic extension of time periods when the court cannot receive electronic documents. The court found that the deadline was automatically extended until the next working day after the Case Management System issue was resolved on 30 December 2024.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001049

DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO BILLING US Corp., BROCKWELL Group LLC, BRIDGEMAZE Group LLC,

The Court of Appeal addressed an application by DISH Technologies and Sling TV for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of their appeal. The appeal had been filed precautionarily against an order of the Local Division Mannheim requiring them to post €800,000 in security for Aylo's costs. The Court of Appeal granted the alternative request, ordering reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees (€900) under R.370.9(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure, but rejected the request for full reimbursement.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001048

Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV , ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV , JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl , E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BI v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the President of the Local Division Paris concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action. ArcelorMittal filed an infringement claim on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and their European distributors/dealers based on European Patent EP 3290200 relating to coated steel strips. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection regarding the language of the proceedings, and the Court addressed translation arrangements, granting the parties 10 days to agree on which annexes should be provided in English.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001047

UPC Decision UPC-001047 v.Respondent

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringing EP 3 655 341, owned by air up group GmbH, which protects a drinking device for retronasal reception of an aroma substance. The defendant, a Chinese company selling a competing drinking bottle with aroma pods, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court ordered the defendant to cease and desist from the infringing activities across UPC Member States, imposed a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

patent interim order · Jan 9, 2025

Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.General Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 73288934

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.

patent settled · Jan 9, 2025

A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · 194204975

The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001056

Meril Italy srl, Meril Life Science Private Limited, Meril GmbH v.Respondent

This order concerns a cost application filed by the Meril entities against SWAT Medical AB, seeking reimbursement of EUR 15,000 in costs incurred during proceedings related to SWAT Medical's application for access to written pleadings and evidence (App_33484/2024), which had been rejected. The respondents argued the cost application was inadmissible because it was incorrectly filed under Rule 9 RoP rather than Rule 158 RoP. The applicants filed a further application (App_64037/2024) to rebut the inadmissibility argument. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur addressed the admissibility of the applicants' written comments and the procedural framework governing cost decisions following rejected access-to-register requests.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001055

MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters) v.Respondent

MediaTek Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi. The confidential information at issue related to the architecture of MediaTek's processors. The Court of Appeal allowed MediaTek's application to intervene in support of Xiaomi, finding that MediaTek had a direct and present legal interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its processor architecture information.

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01370

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01371

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.

patent instituted · Jan 8, 2025

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-01218

Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-01218

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 8, 2025

Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court · 4867914

The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.

Delhi High Court · 189480560

Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited

The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.

Madras High Court · 51066974

Abacus Montessori School v.Abacus International Montessori School; The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Abacus Montessori School, a long-standing educational institution, by ordering the expungement of a conflicting trademark registration held by Abacus International Montessori School. The court found that despite geographical proximity and differences in scope (e.g., 'International'), the identical use of the mark 'ABACUS' for similar educational services created a likelihood of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of prior user rights and established goodwill over subsequent registrations.

Delhi High Court · 116181533

Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Yash Arora As Trading As Siddhi Vinayak Traders And Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, 'GREEN DIAMOND.' The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and identical to the petitioner's established trademark 'DIAMOND,' which had significant goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market since 1975. Crucially, the judgment highlighted the dishonest adoption by the respondent, who was an ex-distributor of the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle against riding on a competitor's reputation.

Delhi High Court · 28069695

RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.

The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001061

Dyson Technology Limited v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, as plaintiff, requested the suspension of both the infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim proceedings, submitting the defendants' written consent dated January 3, 2025. The presiding judge granted the request, ordering the suspension of both proceedings and cancelling the scheduled interim hearing of May 8, 2025 and main hearing of June 3, 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001060

Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns four related patent infringement actions brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The core issue was Sanofi's application under Rule 305 RoP to substitute Sanofi-Aventis France with Sanofi Winthrop Industrie following a corporate merger. The court granted the substitution, ruling that the retroactive effect of the merger was not relevant and that no formal stay of proceedings was necessary.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001059

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. v.Respondent

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed an infringement action against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1. The defendants had filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Before any decision on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001058

DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent

DexCom, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European patent EP 4 026 488 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After the Abbott defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and conditional application to amend the patent, and the defendants in turn withdrew their counterclaim. The court allowed all withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each party for their respective actions.

patent denied · Jan 7, 2025

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC

· PGR2025-00045

The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.

SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP

· PGR2025-00061

Scientific Drilling International has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Gunnar LLLP’s ‘780 patent on magnetic ranging while drilling. The petition alleges lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over several prior‑art patents.