Patent Cases

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· IPR2026-00069

GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.

Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation

· PGR2026-00006

Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.

Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· PGR2026-00008

Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2026-00059

Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

· IPR2025-01587

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’358 patent covering multiband antenna arrays. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patent denied · Oct 21, 2025

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.

· IPR2025-01581

Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.

Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· PGR2026-00008

The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.

patent denied · Oct 21, 2025

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

The PTAB denied institution in certain IPR proceedings involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· IPR2026-00069

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00069, allowing GE Healthcare Ltd. to challenge claims in patent 11938201 held by The Johns Hopkins University.

patent LITIGATION · Oct 20, 2025

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2026-00059

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00059 involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC. The Board found the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Ors.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000281

The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).

patent LITIGATION · Oct 20, 2025

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

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000280

The Meril entities sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 4 151 181 B1, which relates to a radially collapsible and expandable prosthetic heart valve with an outer skirt having axial slack. Edwards counterclaimed for infringement based on Meril's 'Octacor System' and 'Octapro System' products. The court rejected the revocation action, maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, and found infringement, granting an injunction (with an exception for XL-size valves exceeding 30 mm in diameter) along with information, delivery, and penalty payment orders.

patent · Oct 20, 2025

Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED

patent denied · Oct 20, 2025

Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.

Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED

patent denied · Oct 20, 2025

Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.

Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED

The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

patent · Oct 20, 2025

Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED

patent instituted · Oct 20, 2025

Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

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

· IPR2026-00071

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000286

ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.

ONWARD Medical N.V. sought provisional measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1 (relating to a neuromodulation system) by Niche Biomedical's 'ExaStim' stimulation system in Germany and France. The court rejected the application for interim measures, along with the auxiliary requests based on alternative claim formulations, holding that such auxiliary requests signal doubts about the validity of the patent as granted and are generally inadmissible in Art. 62 EPGÜ proceedings. The respondent's application for preliminary cost reimbursement of €168,000 was also rejected for lack of substantiation.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000285

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

This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000284

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

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000283

AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.

AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.