Patent Cases

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

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

Page 181 of 453

patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00373

Skyworks successfully defended its wireless front‑end module patent as the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. The Board cited all six Fintiv factors and the patent owner’s settled expectations to justify the discretionary denial.
patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00372

The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00373

The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
patent · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00414

SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00415

SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
patent · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00373

Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00372

Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.
patent · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00418

SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2025

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001040

Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2025

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

· UPC-001039

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for provisional measures, and the respondents consented to the withdrawal and the release of the security deposit. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001038

This revised order concerns proceedings before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding the number of auxiliary requests filed by the patent proprietor (Harvard College) in its application to amend the patent at issue. The panel modified the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had limited auxiliary requests to a one-digit number, holding that 55 auxiliary requests were not categorically unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the 42 validity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation. The proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Opposition Division decision, and Harvard was ordered to submit its auxiliary requests within 20 days after that decision.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2025

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001037

Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 13, 2025

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation

· UPC-001036

Avago Technologies filed an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 against Realtek Semiconductor before the Local Chamber Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on 9 December 2024 that was never served on Realtek, Avago withdrew its application on 3 January 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Avago to bear the costs.
patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
patent · Jan 13, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.

· IPR2025-00439

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00452

Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
patent · Jan 12, 2025

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00163

Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
patent · Jan 12, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01601

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jan 12, 2025

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Reed Semiconductor Corp.

· IPR2026-00165

Monolithic Power Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Reed Semiconductor’s ’955 patent as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 12, 2025

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00123

Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’887 patent, asserting that the claimed stepped‑profile substrate and edge‑mounted TOSA modules are anticipated or obvious over prior patents by Kuhara and Ho.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001046

This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001045

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an action for declaration of non-infringement regarding European Patents EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The plaintiffs (Netgear entities) applied for leave to withdraw the action, to which the defendant (Huawei) had consented in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the plaintiffs.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001044

This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The Claimant, Valeo Electrification, filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and counterclaims, and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001043

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. Both parties jointly applied to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaims. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and declined to refund court fees due to the timing of the withdrawal declarations.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001042

This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
patent LITIGATION · Jan 10, 2025

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001041

Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
patent · Jan 10, 2025

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01575

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
1 •••180181182•••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 →