Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 18 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000169

Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000168

The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, facts, legal arguments, reasoning, or decision available for analysis.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000167

The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000166

This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerns HMD Global Oy's request under Rule 190 RoP for Fraunhofer to disclose various MPEG-4/AAC patent license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering Fraunhofer to produce its currently in-force bilateral AAC Patent License Agreement with a third party under strict confidentiality protections, but declined to order production of five expired license agreements and another terminated agreement as not currently justified.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000165

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which claimed a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene. The court dismissed the infringement action brought by GXD-Bio Corporation against the Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific concerning the EndoPredict test, finding that the attacked embodiment did not infringe because it normalized expression using three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000164

The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content. No facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the available text.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000163

This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerning a defendant's request under R. 190 RoP for the disclosure of licensing agreements related to the Claimant's MPEG-4/AAC standard-essential patent portfolio. The Defendant sought production of five expired bilateral license agreements and two current license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering the Claimant to produce the current AAC Patent License Agreement with [..] under strict confidentiality protections, while declining to order production of the expired agreements at the current stage of proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000162

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order that had been issued in favor of Ecovacs Robotics against Roborock (HK) Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court found that Ecovacs had breached Rule 192.3 RoP by providing incomplete and misleading submissions, as it had failed to present any technical facts showing that the accused robot vacuum cleaners practiced the patent claims. The order was set aside with ex-tunc effect, except for the confidentiality provisions, and Ecovacs was ordered to bear the costs of the inspection.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000161

Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 19, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000160

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 19, 2025

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00017

Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00017

Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace's bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior‑art guides and textbooks.

patent settled · Dec 19, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 124323713

The plaintiffs filed a quia timet action alleging infringement of their patent (IN'841) covering the drug 'Ruxolitinib', marketed as JAKAVI®. The defendants denied commercialization and requested protection under Section 107A. Both parties agreed to settle, with the defendant undertaking not to commercially exploit the compound during the patent's validity.

patent settled · Dec 19, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 103448850

Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action alleging that Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited was about to infringe its Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound Ruxolitinib (marketed as JAKAVI®). The parties reached an agreement where the defendant committed not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, while retaining rights for research purposes.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 19, 2025

Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited

Madras High Court · 93839496

This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.

patent dismissed · Dec 19, 2025

ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 60107060

ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.

patent interim order · Dec 19, 2025

Xx And Ors v.Yy

Delhi High Court - Orders · 59347419

The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Exemed Pharmaceuticals) from infringing the Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an interim injunction and passed various procedural orders related to the case.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 18, 2025

Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000175

Polidoro S.p.a., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 037 175 concerning a premixed burner, sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for patent infringement regarding two types of premixed burners of the 'Multipat' series. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claim 1 as granted (B1) and claim 1 as maintained in limited form (B2), dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall/removal/destruction, and information, with costs split 75% to defendants and 25% to the claimant.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 18, 2025

IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000174

This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.

patent · Dec 18, 2025

Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.

· IPR2026-00092

Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep‑disordered breathing, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Dec 18, 2025

Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.

· IPR2026-00091

Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art neurostimulator references (Durand/Hoegh and Headley/Tran). The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.

patent · Dec 18, 2025

Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.

· IPR2026-00090

Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical's U.S. Pat. 10,898,709, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over earlier neurostimulation disclosures such as Durand, Hoegh, Headley and Tran. The petition seeks institution of review and cancellation of the claims.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2025

Dr.Vishwanath Padmanabhan v.The Joint Controller of Patents & Designs, Head of Office, Patent Office Chennai

Madras High Court · 37873165

Dr. Vishwanath Padmanabhan challenged the Patent Office's decision to deem his invention application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to a technical uploading error in the e-filing portal. The court found that since the petitioner intended to proceed and had paid all requisite fees, the rejection was unjust.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2025

Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad

Bombay High Court · 161671137

Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2025

Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India

Madras High Court · 36293065

The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2025

Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 133976982

The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.

patent interim order · Dec 18, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 174994936

The Delhi High Court passed several orders in CS(COMM) 1356/2025. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of interim relief, allowed applications for discovery and additional documents, and addressed an ad-interim injunction request.

patent interim order · Dec 18, 2025

Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 18359517

Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 17, 2025

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000177

This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.

1 •••17 18 19•••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 →