Patent Cases

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

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

Page 19 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Dec 17, 2025

XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000176

An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2025

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--

· IPR2026-00152

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC entered into a settlement that grants Ebury a royalty‑free license to several patents covering cross‑border payments, includes covenants not to sue, and mandates dismissal of the pending IPR and related lawsuit.
patent · Dec 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2026-00174

Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that ordered review of an expired content‑delivery patent owned by Sandpiper CDN. The petition argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the district‑court record, making the decision an outlier.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2025

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--

· IPR2026-00152

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. moved to withdraw its IPR petition after settling with Intercurrency Software LLC. The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, which was unopposed and at an early stage.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2026-00174

The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN, keeping the institutions intact.
patent · Dec 17, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2026-00174

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 9,762,692 patent covering CDN popularity‑based routing and content partitioning, asserting obviousness over Seed and Swildens references.
patent · Dec 17, 2025

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--

· IPR2026-00152

Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
patent pending · Dec 17, 2025

R P Scherer Technologies Llc v.The Patent Office of India

Bombay High Court · 66192204

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202127050600) by the Assistant Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core issue was whether the claimed formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins/peptides was non-obvious over cited prior art. Given the technical nature, the Court appointed a Scientific Advisor to render an opinion.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves for aspiration catheters after finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

Imperative Care challenged Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and instituted inter partes review on all 18 challenged claims.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 catheter aspiration patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The review covers all 15 claims and four obviousness grounds involving Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent after finding Imperative Care likely to succeed on at least one claim, focusing on obviousness over Garrison, Laub, and Aklog references.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

Imperative Care successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical's 11,969,333 B2 patent covering intravascular clot removal. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Laub, Garrison, and related references, and instituted review on all 36 challenged claims.
patent instituted · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
patent · Dec 16, 2025

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00169

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 2025

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master

Delhi District Court · 176783403

Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000185

This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000184

Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000183

Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000182

Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000181

This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000180

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000179

Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 12, 2025

ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000178

The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
patent defendant favorable · Dec 12, 2025

Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs

Madras High Court · 163596593

Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 12, 2025

Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents

Calcutta High Court · 39129911

The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (1250/KOL/2009) primarily on grounds of lacking inventive steps. The appellant argued that the reintroduction of this objection after amendments and previous hearings violated natural justice principles. The High Court found that the procedure was against the scheme of the Act, setting aside the rejection order.
patent pending · Dec 12, 2025

Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 115636528

Novo Nordisk A/S appealed an order where a Single Judge found infringement and granted limited relief to Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited. The appeal centers on whether the suit patent (IN 2626971) is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64 of the Patents Act, given that the learned judge found the claim obvious from prior art.
patent defendant favorable · Dec 12, 2025

Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 77295870

Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
patent defendant favorable · Dec 12, 2025

Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs

Madras High Court · 166528191

Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
1 •••181920•••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 →