Patent Cases

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH

This is a procedural order concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for invalidity involving European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge previously assigned to the case, Patrice Vidon, resigned pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Statutes. To ensure continuity of the panel's composition, the presiding judge requested the assignment of a replacement technically qualified judge effective January 1, 2025.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001066

Insulet Corporation v.Respondent

1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 FINAL ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30/12/2024 Order no. ORD_60558/2024 Head notes 1. In proceedings for costs decision under rules 150 RoP et seq. an already existing decision on costs in pr

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001064

Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent

This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants to reject at an early stage the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its claims under Rule 263 RoP, which was based on a conditional application to amend the patent-in-suit (EP2642632) under Rule 30 RoP filed in response to the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued that procedural economy required an early decision on the admissibility of the underlying patent amendment request. The court declined to make a preliminary decision on the substantive admissibility of the claim amendment, holding that such decisions of this magnitude should generally be left to the main proceedings and the oral hearing.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

patent denied · Dec 30, 2024

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).

patent denied · Dec 30, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00367

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00368

Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.

patent instituted · Dec 30, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001072

Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent

Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs in the proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent had already been ordered to provide security of EUR 300,000.00, and Microsoft sought an increase to at least EUR 500,000.00, or alternatively EUR 300,000.00. The respondent requested dismissal or, alternatively, significantly lower security amounts. The Court observed that the request, although framed as one for additional security, actually amounted to a request to modify the existing security by increasing its amount.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001071

Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001070

Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent

In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001069

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent

The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review under Rule 333 RoP of an order granting security for costs of EUR 300,000.00 in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant requested reduction of the security to EUR 100,000.00, citing its subsequent application to reduce the damages claimed. The respondent argued the request was inadmissible and unfounded. The Court addressed the admissibility of the application, clarifying that incorrect citation of legal provisions does not prevent consideration of the motion, and that parties may apply to revoke or vary a security order when factual circumstances change.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001068

Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited

This appeal proceeding concerned a request by Syngenta Limited to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25, a German-language document attached to its Statement of Response. Sumi Agro, the opposing party, took no position and left the matter to the Court's discretion. The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled that the exhibit did not need to be translated, granting Syngenta's request.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001067

Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Respondent

The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00009

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00009

Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.