Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 180 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2025

Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others

This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 15, 2025

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001027

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of claims in proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Division Hamburg that partially revoked the patent and dismissed the infringement claim, both parties sought to withdraw their respective claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to Avago.

patent denied · Jan 15, 2025

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2025-00473

Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.

patent denied · Jan 15, 2025

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2025-00455

The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00389

Ningde Amperex Technology seeks to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR filed by battery maker Zhuhai CosMX, arguing the Board relied on impermissible expert testimony and ignored teaching‑away prior art.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00389

Court decision.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· PGR2025-00023

Charles River Laboratories has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑10 of Seikagaku’s 11,959,109 patent covering recombinant endotoxin assay methods. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation by a 2019 publication.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00420

SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00389

Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Ningde Amperex’s U.S. Patent 11,923,498, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary factors oppose institution.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00419

SAP America petitions the PTAB to invalidate Valtrus’s ’738 patent covering SIP fault‑tolerance methods, asserting obviousness over the Forissier patent. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is improper.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00333

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2025-00473

Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).

patent · Jan 15, 2025

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2025-00455

NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

Celltrion, Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00456

Celltrion seeks IPR institution to invalidate all 50 claims of Regeneron’s US 11,084,865, arguing anticipation by US432 and lack of written description for glycosylation and stability limits.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00417

SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent · Jan 15, 2025

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00416

SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

patent instituted · Jan 15, 2025

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· PGR2025-00023

Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to invalidate Seikagaku Corporation's patent claims related to endotoxin detection. The Board found grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 112, specifically citing anticipation by a prior publication.

patent instituted · Jan 15, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00389

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s lithium-ion battery patent (11,923,498). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 15, 2025

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 83528155

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 14, 2025

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001035

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 14, 2025

Sanofi v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001034

This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 14, 2025

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001033

Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 14, 2025

Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001032

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 14, 2025

Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001031

Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.

patent · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

patent · Jan 14, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.

patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.

patent · Jan 14, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, arguing that retroactive policy changes violated due process. The petition focuses on the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses in a parallel ITC case and the newly‑created “settled expectations” doctrine.

1 •••179 180 181•••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 →