Patent Cases

12,989 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,823 European UPC 1,592 US PTAB 8,574

Page 33 of 433

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 13, 2025

Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/14/2024

Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
patent pending · Jun 12, 2025

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · App_27016/2025

In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.
patent pending · Jun 12, 2025

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · ORD_25552/2025

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha initiated infringement proceedings against General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. and related entities concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a Procedural Order confirming that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim would be heard jointly. This decision streamlines the litigation process by ensuring a unified interpretation of the patent's scope across both validity and infringement claims.
patent interim order · Jun 12, 2025

Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

Calcutta High Court · Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol / IPDPTA/78/2023

Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
patent remanded · Jun 12, 2025

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · IPDAID/27/2024

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 12, 2025

Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/22/2023

Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
patent interim order · Jun 12, 2025

AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/14/2023

AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
patent mixed · Jun 12, 2025

ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR

Calcutta High Court · OA/3/2018/PT/KOL

This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
patent settled · Jun 11, 2025

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.104 of 2025

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.
patent partially granted · Jun 10, 2025

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_213/2025

In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
patent partially granted · Jun 9, 2025

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · ORD_27305/2025

This UPC decision addressed a procedural request for access to confidential case files following the revocation of an EP patent. The Court held that once a first instance judgment is rendered, the public interest in transparency and understanding the court's reasoning generally prevails over confidentiality concerns. Although the applicant was granted access to the documents, the judge-rapporteur also allowed Juul Labs to appeal and suspended the order pending the outcome of that appeal.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · ORD_69323/2024

In a significant decision, the Munich Local Court dismissed Tiroler Rohre GmbH's infringement claim against SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH regarding driving tips (ram spikes). The court accepted the defendants' technical arguments, specifically that the alleged 'ledge' was not free-standing and that the contact surface was not flat as required by the patent claims. This ruling underscores the importance of precise claim construction in UPC litigation, particularly when dealing with functional or structural limitations.
patent pending · Jun 6, 2025

Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_20490/2025

In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

Luxembourg (LU) · App_23407/2025

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v.VusionGroup SA

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_69091/2024

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute concerning the timely filing and recovery of costs in patent litigation. The appellant (Hanshow) sought an extension for its cost claim related to the appeal proceedings against VusionGroup. The court strictly upheld the procedural requirements, ruling that extensions are not available for missed deadlines under R. 151 VerfO. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to UPC timelines and clarifies the scope of costs recovery in summary cost proceedings.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_22065/2025

This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
patent partially granted · Jun 6, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_598607/2023

This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 6, 2025

SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · OMP No. 320 of 2023 in COMS No. 6 of 2023

The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
patent pending · Jun 5, 2025

Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_25532/2025

This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
patent partially granted · Jun 5, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · App_25415/2025

This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred by Insulet Corporation during litigation. The UPC Court balanced the need to protect sensitive commercial information against the fundamental right of EOFLOW Co., Ltd. to a fair trial. While acknowledging the sensitivity of attorney's fees, the court upheld the requirement that at least one natural person from each party must have access to confidential materials, thereby limiting Insulet's ability to restrict disclosure solely to its legal representatives.
patent dismissed · Jun 5, 2025

PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_25858/2025

In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
patent partially granted · Jun 5, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · App_25415/2025

This procedural order addressed a request for confidentiality regarding legal fees incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings. Insulet sought to protect its attorney's fees under privilege, but the UPC emphasized the balance between protecting confidential information and ensuring the respondent's right to be heard. The Court ultimately rejected the attempt to limit access solely to law firms, affirming that at least one natural person from each party must have access for a fair trial.
patent settled · Jun 5, 2025

Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · App_24411/2025

Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
patent dismissed · Jun 5, 2025

PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_25959/2025

In this UPC case concerning EP 3 602 692, the claimant (Phoenix Contact) voluntarily withdrew its infringement suit against the respondents. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal of the counterclaim for revocation as well. This decision highlights that voluntary withdrawals can lead to the termination of proceedings and trigger specific rules regarding the refund of court fees, providing a clear procedural path for parties seeking an amicable resolution.
patent remanded · Jun 5, 2025

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · C.M.A.(PT).No.42 of 2024

TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.
patent remanded · Jun 5, 2025

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(GI)No.2 of 2023

The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
patent referred · Jun 4, 2025

Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_26591/2025

This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
patent granted · Jun 4, 2025

Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna, Inc.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · App_25212/2025

This procedural order addressed requests from Moderna to rectify previous court orders concerning the deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections (PO). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the dates of service mentioned in the original PO Order contained clerical errors. By correcting these dates, the court confirmed that all defendants, including various international Moderna entities, had filed their preliminary objections timely and were therefore admissible to defend themselves in the main infringement proceedings.
patent partially granted · Jun 4, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_18828/2025

This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
patent partially granted · Jun 3, 2025

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_21220/2025

This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
1 •••323334•••433
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 →