Patent Cases

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00049

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00048

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.

· IPR2026-00055

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 9,860,595, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds combining Tecot, Lee, Logan, Poslinski, and McElhatten. The case is pending institution.

patent denied · Oct 31, 2025

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00050

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00107

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2026-00107, finding that Apple Inc. failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

patent denied · Oct 31, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP

· IPR2026-00105

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00105 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite reviewing discretionary considerations.

patent denied · Oct 31, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00104

The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against HBCU Messaging US LP, finding that Apple failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2025

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00049

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2025

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00050

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00050, allowing the challenger to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent mixed · Oct 31, 2025

Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. v.Inkmango Inc. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 49371382

Juggernaut Books initiated contempt proceedings against Inkmango Inc. alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement decree regarding the publication of mandated disclaimers. The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling its obligations, the respondents failed to publish the required notices on their digital platforms. While the court acknowledged the dispute over compliance, it did not immediately punish the respondent, instead directing them to file a compliance affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000266

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Oerlikon's request for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. The Court rejected the request to include first instance costs (already awarded by the Milan Local Division) in the security, but ordered Bhagat to provide a security of €19,000 for appeal costs within 10 days of notification, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-authorized bank.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000265

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against three Vivo entities concerning European patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over the FRAND-related claims and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and deferred the question of admissibility of the FRAND terms claim (A.II) to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000264

Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Anr.

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted an order for inspection and evidence preservation in favor of Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device. The applicant sought inspection of the respondents' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne to gather evidence of alleged infringement of claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 of the patent. The court ordered the inspection to be carried out by an expert and court bailiff, with detailed measurements, photographs, and potentially disassembly, subject to various procedural safeguards.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000263

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because Sun Patent's request for a FRAND determination constituted a standalone claim outside the scope of Article 32 UPCA, and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and ruling that the admissibility of the FRAND-related claim (A.II) under Article 32.1 UPCA would be addressed in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.

patent · Oct 30, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01600

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 29, 2025

Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH & Others v.FAST IP, LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000267

The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted an application by the Skechers defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP4003084 (titled "Rapid-entry foot wear having a stabilizer and an elastic element"). The court held that, under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, fairness considerations and the position of the defendants weighed in favor of using the language of the patent, particularly given that all defendants belong to the California-based Skechers group with English as their internal working language.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 28, 2025

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000270

This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2448225. The order summarizes decisions taken during an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing various procedural matters including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence and amendments, and the filing of further submissions. The judge-rapporteur issued orders on the admission of patent sale and assignment agreements, claim amendments, prior art documents, and inventive step objections, while referring certain admissibility questions to the panel for final decision.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 28, 2025

BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000269

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 28, 2025

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000268

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551. Following an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued decisions on various procedural matters, including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence, amendments to the patent claims, and the introduction of prior art documents. The order admits the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement, both rounds of patent amendments under Rules 30.1 and 30.2 RoP, and prior art documents D6 through D11, while granting the Claimant the right to comment on the newly introduced documents and validity attacks.

patent · Oct 28, 2025

Intelligent Protection Management Corp. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.

· IPR2025-01589

IPM petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cisco’s ’708 video‑conferencing patent, arguing all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art sliders and layout controls.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 27, 2025

Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000272

Unified Patent Court decision.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 27, 2025

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000271

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2726230 B1 concerning a method and apparatus for continuously producing lattice girders, brought an infringement action against AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding their Girderflex and Girderflex VSX machines. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, arguing that AWM had publicly disclosed the same technical solution through prior JIT machines before the patent's priority date. The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Progress to bear the costs.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory patent obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck, resulting in a complete invalidation.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all twenty claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent. The PTAB held the claims obvious over the Kim, Rajan, and Wyman references and declared them unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 27, 2025

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions final.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.