Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 180 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 19, 2024

Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 93151906

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001099

This is a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The claimants sought full revocation of the patent on grounds of added matter, lack of novelty over WO 2007/077255 A2 (Glejboel), and lack of inventive step starting from US 2002/0120236 (Diaz) or Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or US 6,516,950 (Robertson). The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Rules 19(1)(b) and 48 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction is not justified by public interest, though it may give rise to contractual liability.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v.Visibly Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001098

Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Amycel LLC v.***

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001096

1 Intern gebruik The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/12/2024 regarding R.275 RoP APPLICANT Amycel LLC 260 Westgate Drive - 95076 - Watsonville, California - US Represented by H
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001095

This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
patent denied · Dec 18, 2024

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.
patent · Dec 18, 2024

GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC

· IPR2025-00337

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
patent instituted · Dec 18, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 18, 2024

GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC

· IPR2025-00337

Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2024

Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Ambur Briyani

Madras High Court · 144998557

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2024

Dabur India Limited v.Ms Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 63282156

The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001103

This order concerns an application by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (the Claimant in a revocation action regarding EP 2 794 928 B1) for the release of a security for legal costs previously imposed under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The security of EUR 300,000 had been ordered on 30 October 2023 due to concerns about the Claimant's financial position and its close ties to its then-parent company. Following a restructuring under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and the Claimant's transfer to Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., the Claimant sought release of the security on the grounds that the reasons for imposing it had ceased to exist.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001102

Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001101

This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding European Patent EP2145848. The proceedings originated from an ex parte evidence preservation order obtained by Oerlikon in June 2023 in connection with the ITMA trade fair held in Rho, Milan. Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation challenging the patent's validity on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step, while Oerlikon introduced seven auxiliary requests. The order addresses procedural matters discussed at the interim conference, including settlement prospects, translation corrections, and the scope of the validity attack.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001097

This order concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of September 13, 2024, in which the Local Chamber Munich found the Belkin defendants liable for patent infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 and ordered them to provide information under Article 67 EPGÜ. The court addressed two key issues: whether the claimant's request for information in electronic form was sufficiently specific, and the nature of coercive penalties under Article 82 EPGÜ. The court held that electronic form must be specifically requested, and that coercive penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Stratasys seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB panel’s decision instituting inter partes review of eight claims of its 3‑D‑printer patent. The owner argues the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the Guidance Memorandum, warranting a denial of institution under § 314(a).
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00250

Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00304

ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00250

Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00215

The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00215

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00300

LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Dec 17, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
1 •••179180181•••424
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 →