Patent Cases

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

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

Page 38 of 453

patent pending · Oct 17, 2025

Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 68397941

Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 16, 2025

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000289

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to redacted versions of documents filed in the main proceedings between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. concerning EP4201327. The Judge Rapporteur partially granted the request, ordering the parties to provide only the redacted application and objection submissions, but denying access to the exhibits attached to those submissions.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 16, 2025

Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o. and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000288

This decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 387 547 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants, who had filed a counterclaim for revocation against Brita SE's patent infringement action, applied to withdraw their counterclaim after the chamber had already issued its decision but before the appeal deadline expired. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and held that each party bears its own costs.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 16, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000287

Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
patent · Oct 16, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01561

Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
patent · Oct 16, 2025

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.

· IPR2026-00068

Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Oct 16, 2025

Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.

· IPR2025-01536

Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
patent · Oct 16, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01561

Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
patent pending · Oct 16, 2025

Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 131669927

Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 16, 2025

Unique International Ev Private Limited v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 42043661

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Unique International EV Private Limited against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric vehicles under the 'PANTHER' brand, successfully argued that the Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by using confusingly similar marks for identical goods (e-rickshaws). This interim relief prevents the Defendants from continuing their alleged infringement while the main suit proceeds.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2025

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000293

Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sought to withdraw its infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH sought to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation. Both parties consented to the respective withdrawals and declared they would not make cost applications. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000292

This is a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan) concerning cost compensation following a prior decision on the merits dated 22 July 2025 in revocation and infringement proceedings regarding EP4201327. Insulet Corporation, as the prevailing party, sought an additional EUR 197,587.50 in costs beyond the provisional EUR 200,000 already awarded. The court partially granted the request, excluding redacted costs, personal scheduling costs, enforcement-phase costs, and an Italian law expert opinion, and applying a 30% reduction to costs incurred after 2 May 2025 due to reduced case complexity following the Court of Appeal's PI decision.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2025

Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. & Wizart LLC

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000291

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2025

Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000290

Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 concerning a display and distribution package for eggs, valid in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court dismissed the infringement action, partially revoked the patent (revoking claims 1, 6, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-8 while maintaining claims 9-13), and allocated costs accordingly.
patent · Oct 15, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC

· IPR2026-00011

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
patent · Oct 15, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01559

Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
patent · Oct 15, 2025

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

· IPR2026-00021

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
patent · Oct 15, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01559

Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
patent pending · Oct 15, 2025

Rajesh Pal Sharma v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 40028291

Rajesh Pal Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which rejected his Indian Patent Application No. 201811004587. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies within specified timelines.
patent defendant favorable · Oct 15, 2025

Saksham Impex Private Limited v.Amit Patel

Delhi District Court · 14651974

Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. challenged an arbitral award that rejected its claims against former employee Amit Patel, alleging breach of confidentiality and trade secrets related to the 'Monin' brand. The petitioner argued the arbitrator erred on grounds of perversity and patent illegality. However, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no ground to set it aside.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2025

Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000297

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_699/2025) concerning penalty payments for non-compliance with orders from a final decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023). The Court of Appeal provided extensive guidance on the system of penalties under Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP, and ruled that the appeal was only partly successful, setting aside order 1 and the cost decision while maintaining orders 2 and 3 in slightly limited form. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in both instances.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2025

Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o.a.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000296

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2025

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000295

The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2025

Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000294

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. The defendants' representatives demonstrated that one of their lead attorneys was unable to attend the scheduled oral hearing for personal reasons, and that substitution was not feasible due to the short notice and complexity of the case. The court granted the defendants' request and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for October 16, 2025.
patent · Oct 14, 2025

Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-01571

Apple seeks dismissal as a co‑petitioner in an IPR over Headwater Research’s location‑service patent after the related Texas lawsuit was thrown out. The motion relies on procedural rules and lack of opposition from the patent owner.
patent denied · Oct 14, 2025

Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-01571

The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01560

Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
patent · Oct 14, 2025

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01283

Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01283

Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01283

SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
1 •••373839•••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 →