Patent Cases

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

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

Page 27 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Nov 17, 2025

Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000238

Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 17, 2025

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-000237

Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 17, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000236

This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (under Article 60 EPGÜ) at the trade fair stand of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the EMO Messe Hannover, in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. After the inspection was executed and the court-appointed expert produced a detailed description, the respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but did not do so. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, lifted the protective order in relation to the applicant, and set the deadline for filing the main action.
patent mixed · Nov 17, 2025

Nike Innovate C.V. v.Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor Of Fashionista & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 100786456

Nike Innovate C.V. filed a contempt petition against Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor of Fashionista & Ors., alleging willful disobedience of a compromise decree dated 13.10.2025. The original suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of Nike's intellectual property. Despite settling the matter and undertaking to cease all infringing activities, the petitioner presented evidence showing the respondents continued selling and soliciting the impugned goods. Consequently, the court found prima facie grounds for contempt and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize the infringing materials.
patent interim order · Nov 17, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 162036834

The Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed an application seeking condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an Appeal against the refusal of Patent Application No. 201917042060. The Respondent accepted the notice and stated they had no objection to the condonation.
patent defendant favorable · Nov 17, 2025

FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court · 61565219

The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
patent defendant favorable · Nov 17, 2025

Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design

Calcutta High Court · 110863457

The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
patent pending · Nov 17, 2025

Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 143168062

Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 15, 2025

Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 41082486

Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 14, 2025

NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2026-00120

Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy, together with Malikie Innovations, filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement that resolves their dispute over a smart‑home energy patent.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 14, 2025

NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2026-00120

The IPR concerning Patent 11,119,756 was terminated after Vivint Smart Home, NRG Energy and Malikie Innovations reached a confidential settlement before the trial was instituted.
patent · Nov 14, 2025

Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00108

Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
patent · Nov 14, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00130

TSMC has filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s 9,318,609 FinFET patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier TSMC patents and related publications. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103, relying on Xu, Ching, and Huang references.
patent · Nov 14, 2025

NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2026-00120

Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twenty claims of Malikie Innovations’ ’756 patent covering IoT software‑update control, citing obviousness over the Storto and Won publications.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00130

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
patent denied · Nov 14, 2025

Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00108

The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 13, 2025

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000241

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC filed infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European Patent EP3286270 against six defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities. No statement of defence or counterclaim was filed by any defendant, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, ordered confidentiality of certain annexes, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 13, 2025

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000240

AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. initiated infringement proceedings before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague against Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. After the Defendants failed to file any statement of defence or counterclaim, the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings, and the Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared certain confidential annexes restricted to the parties and the Court, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€96,600) to the Claimant.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2025

Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000244

This case concerns review proceedings under R. 197.3 RoP regarding orders to preserve evidence and for inspection issued ex parte in favor of Genentech and Roche concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon, who were planning to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed with Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2025

Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000243

This case concerns review proceedings under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure regarding two ex parte orders (an Order to Preserve Evidence and an Order for Inspection) issued on 30 May 2025 in connection with European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon, which planned to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed by Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report and for the parties to initiate infringement proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2025

American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000242

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
patent pending · Nov 12, 2025

Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 71189259

The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 11, 2025

Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000247

This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 11, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000246

The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 11, 2025

Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000245

This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court, related to main proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, but the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application and declared the proceedings terminated without a costs decision.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
patent · Nov 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
patent · Nov 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
1 •••262728•••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 →