Patent Cases

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

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

Page 36 of 453

patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
patent instituted · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00058

TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 27, 2025

Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Supreme Court of India · 74396063

The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
patent interim order · Oct 27, 2025

Pas Agro Foods v.Krbl Limited; Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India; Deputy Registrar of Copyrights

Kerala High Court · 85407130

Pas Agro Foods filed a Special Jurisdiction Case seeking the expungement of trademark and copyright registrations granted to Krbl Limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the petition and arguments, directed that notice be served upon all respondents via speed post and email. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity or ownership of the registered IP rights.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 24, 2025

Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000274

Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN), a French company specializing in plastic connection and drainage systems, sued four entities of the First group for infringement of European patent EP3272938 concerning its Connecto®invisible channel grid. RPN alleged that the defendants' Ghost channel grid covers and Pratiko channel gutters infringed claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the patent, both literally and by equivalence. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of RPN's infringement claims, finding that the alleged equivalent function did not arise from the patent's characteristics and was not easily deducible by a person skilled in the art, and ordered RPN to bear all costs and pay a provisional sum of 70,000 euros to the defendants.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 24, 2025

Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000273

This case concerns an action for infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 (relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn) brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies. When service of process via the Hague Service Convention to China remained unconfirmed for over 3.5 months, the claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the application, ordering that service could be effected by a German bailiff at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf upon the most senior staff member of the defendants present at their exhibition stand.
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC

· IPR2026-00086

Samsung Electronics files an IPR petition challenging Massively Broadband’s ’700 Patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Daley, Aaron and Scherzer. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· IPR2026-00045

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC

· IPR2026-00013

Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2025

Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC

· IPR2026-00013

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent dismissed · Oct 24, 2025

M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · 3723267

M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2025

M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 47831933

Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2025

M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 167576733

Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 23, 2025

bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000275

The Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court consolidated a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation brought by bioMérieux group companies against European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 (owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC), concerning modular point-of-care devices. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 3, finding that the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 2 contained added subject-matter. Costs were apportioned equitably, with bioMérieux ordered to pay two-thirds of Labrador's legal costs (EUR 400,000), and Labrador's request for confidentiality of the agreed costs amount was dismissed.
patent · Oct 23, 2025

Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01579

LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
patent · Oct 23, 2025

Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01579

Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 22, 2025

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000277

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 22, 2025

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000276

Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
patent · Oct 22, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC

· IPR2026-00033

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent instituted · Oct 22, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.

· IPR2026-00072

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 21, 2025

Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000279

Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 21, 2025

Amycel LLC v.XXX

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000278

Amycel LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to brown mushrooms for commercial production, brought an infringement action against a Polish defendant for selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The defendant failed to file a timely Statement of Defence, leading to a decision by default after a Rule 275 order. The Court confirmed the orders previously granted in provisional measures proceedings, finding that the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC and that infringement was established.
1 •••353637•••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 →