Patent Cases

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

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

Page 23 of 453

patent · Dec 3, 2025

Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00723

Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
patent interim order · Dec 3, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 115885328

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
patent interim order · Dec 3, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 6772786

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds (JAKAVI®). The court passed several orders granting exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding mediation, identity masking, and advance service, while also directing the execution of Local Commissions to investigate the alleged infringement.
patent pending · Dec 3, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lucius Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 110972259

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 concerning Ruxolitinib Compounds. The court granted various exemptions sought by the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation, and proceeded with appointing Local Commissioners for the execution of the patent.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 2, 2025

Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000204

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2025

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00486

AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00486

The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00486

AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00486

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Dec 2, 2025

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00500

Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Dec 2, 2025

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00486

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
patent defendant favorable · Dec 2, 2025

Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 39726850

Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
patent remanded · Dec 2, 2025

M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/s. Salus Pharmaceutical & anr.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · 126816771

M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited filed a commercial appeal against an order, seeking condonation of delay due to initial incorrect nomenclature. The court allowed the delay condonation, noting that procedural rules are handmaids of justice. Subsequently, the court set aside a single judge's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits, emphasizing continuous infringement.
patent mixed · Dec 2, 2025

XX v.Y

Delhi High Court - Orders · 199407075

The Delhi High Court allowed the commercial suit filed by XX against Y, which alleges infringement of trademarks and designs related to 'HERO Genuine engine oil.' The court granted several procedural reliefs, including masking party identities and exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, seize infringing stock, and ascertain its value, paving the way for immediate interim protection.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 1, 2025

Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000206

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 1, 2025

TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000205

TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
patent pending · Dec 1, 2025

Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142063420

The Delhi High Court passed an order listing the issues in a suit for infringement and a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. The court framed multiple issues concerning whether the defendant infringed the patent and whether the patent is liable to be revoked under various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.
patent pending · Dec 1, 2025

Kaha Pte. Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 149595255

Kaha Pte. Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of a patent for application no. 02017037882. The court also addressed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from document submission requirements.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000211

Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000210

This appeal concerned an Application for provisional measures brought by Barco N.V. against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 732 827 relating to methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the Application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the dismissal but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 (half the applicable ceiling) for both the Court of First Instance and appeal proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000209

Procedural order in patent infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities. The court exercised its discretionary power under R.302.1 RoP to order the defendants to split their counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1526/2025), which concerned both patents, into two separate counterclaim actions—one per patent—due to procedural complexity, differing opposition stages at the EPO, and court fee considerations.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000208

Barco N.V., proprietor of European patent EP 3 732 827 concerning methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants, sought provisional measures against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement by Yealink's MeetingBar Products, WPP30, and RoomCast devices. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the Local Division's findings but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 for both the first instance and appeal proceedings, rejecting the cross-appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. et al.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000207

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
patent mixed · Nov 28, 2025

Pachranga International Inc. v.Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries

Delhi High Court - Orders · 3007182

Pachranga International Inc. filed an application alleging that Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries willfully disobeyed a prior court order dated 11.03.2025, which restrained the defendant from dealing in products bearing deceptive labels and infringing on the plaintiff's registered design, copyright, and trademarks. The plaintiff alleged continued violation through manufacturing and online sales using similar branding. In response, the defendant undertook to modify the trade dress of its label by changing the color and font, while also confirming the removal of specified URLs.
patent remanded · Nov 28, 2025

M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office

Madras High Court · 77284003

TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
patent remanded · Nov 28, 2025

M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office

Madras High Court · 171228677

TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 27, 2025

Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000217

This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
1 •••222324•••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 →