Patent Cases

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

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

Page 42 of 433

patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED

Madras High Court · OP(PT) No.60 of 2023 (ORA/2/2021/PT/CH)

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
patent remanded · Apr 3, 2025

Bts Research International Pty Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA 56 OF 2023

The petitioner appealed against the rejection of its patent application, which claimed a method for generating tri-hybrid cells. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing that the hybrid cell fell within the definition of naturally occurring organisms or biological processes. The High Court found this conclusion unsubstantiated, noting the artificial and human intervention required to create the synthetic tri-hybrid cells.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 3, 2025

M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited v.M/S. Tega Industries Limited

Orissa High Court · C.R.P. No.16 of 2023

This revision petition challenged an order rejecting a petition filed by M/S. Swagath Urethane Private Limited (the defendant in the original suit) under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerned a patent infringement suit (C.S. No.01 of 2019) where the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court upheld the original order, finding that the suit was properly filed based on prior judicial directions and the defendant's business location.
patent partially granted · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_598590/2023

Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing a patent related to lithographic printing plates in the UPC Local Division Mannheim. The court found infringement, leading to significant remedies including mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products. While Fujifilm's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the defendants were ordered to pay an interim award for legal costs, marking a decisive victory for the claimant.
patent denied · Apr 2, 2025

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · App_61657/2024

In a procedural application concerning an infringement action, the UPC Central Division addressed Microsoft Corporation's request for a decision by default against it. Although Microsoft failed to provide security for costs as required, the Court exercised its discretion and rejected the application. The ruling emphasizes that while rules allow for default judgments, the court must ensure sufficient evidentiary certainty exists before proceeding, thereby prioritizing substantive fairness over strict procedural adherence.
patent pending · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_15980/2025

In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part of EP 3 511 174. This decision was necessitated by an outstanding ECJ ruling concerning international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to prevent undue delay in enforcement while ensuring all parties had a fair opportunity to comment on the pending European law question.
patent pending · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_15984/2025

In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
patent denied · Apr 2, 2025

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · App_54918/2024

In this procedural order, the UPC Hamburg Local Division addressed a request by multiple defendants to compel the Chinese claimant, JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs. The Court rejected the motion, emphasizing that nationality or domicile alone cannot justify such an order. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties must present concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign judgment recognition.
patent pending · Apr 2, 2025

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S; Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_13067/2025

In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected the preliminary objection raised by Ascendis Pharma against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.'s infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 175 863. The Court ruled that BioMarin had adequately established jurisdiction and competence by demonstrating alleged infringing acts within Germany. Consequently, the proceedings will continue to the main substantive phase, where the legal characterization of the disputed acts will be examined.
patent partially granted · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_15978/2025

Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 511 174 B1, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim found infringement, leading to significant remedies including the mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products (SONORA XTRA-3). Although the defendants' counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the case highlights the court's willingness to grant strong injunctive relief against infringing parties.
patent denied · Apr 2, 2025

Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_8316/2025

In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim rejected the defendants' multiple applications to stay infringement proceedings related to EP 3 296 274. The defendants, representing major electronics groups (Hisense, TCL, LG), argued that joining cases was necessary for a fair trial and due to difficulties in serving parties in China/Hong Kong. The Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the lack of an obligation to sue all suppliers jointly. Furthermore, the court issued a procedural order mandating that all parties consolidate their filings into a single workflow to prevent unnecessary delays and administrative burden.
patent denied · Apr 2, 2025

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_598586/2023

Fujifilm sued Kodak entities for infringing EP 3 476 616, a patent covering lithographic printing plate technology. However, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim delivered a decisive ruling, entirely revoking the patent within Germany. Consequently, the infringement action was dismissed. This case highlights the critical importance of patent validity challenges and the strict procedural requirements for limited defenses under the UPCA.
patent defendant favorable · Apr 2, 2025

Hamdard Laboratories India Medicine Division v.Unani Drugs Manufacturers Association (UDMA)

Delhi High Court · FAO 328/2024 & FAO 347/2024

Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) appealed against an order dismissing its applications, alleging that UDMA was misleading the public by claiming market dominance and associating Hamdard Food Division products with medicinal claims. The core dispute revolved around the scope of a Family Settlement Deed which divided the HAMDARD Group into Medicine and Food divisions, restricting their respective product lines. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the matter fundamentally involved commercial disputes concerning IP rights and required adjudication by a competent Commercial Court.
patent pending · Apr 1, 2025

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_15347/2025

This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed requests for extensions and case management adjustments in a patent infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The court granted the requested extension, allowing Samsung more time to respond to key applications concerning claim amendments and case review. This decision highlights the Court's role in managing complex litigation timelines while also issuing guidance on efficient procedural practice.
patent dismissed · Apr 1, 2025

MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_15315/2025

In this UPC case concerning EP 2 762 219, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH sought interim measures against SOTRAS - S.R.L. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to a request for withdrawal of the application. The Local Division allowed the withdrawal, confirming that no legitimate interest was shown by the respondent in having the case decided. Although the main action was dropped, MANN+HUMMEL successfully secured a refund of 60% of its court fees.
patent denied · Apr 1, 2025

Amycel LLC v.E

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_CFI_499/2024

This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for re-establishment of rights (R.320). The Defendant sought to reinstate the deadline to file its Statement of Defence due to illness. However, the Court rejected this request, finding that the representative failed to exercise all due care in managing the filing process. This rejection means the infringement action will proceed to a decision by default against the Defendant.
patent denied · Apr 1, 2025

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_7563/2025

In this procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division, TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission, arguing that Defendants had raised complex and new technical points. The Court denied the request, emphasizing that parties must provide detailed substantiation when requesting deviations from the standard written procedure framework (R. 12 RoP). This decision reinforces the need for precision in procedural filings within the UPC.
patent denied · Apr 1, 2025

Amycel LLC v.-

The Hague (NL) Local Division · App_10764/2025

This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for re-establishment of rights (R.320) filed by the Defendant after missing the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, finding that the representative failed to demonstrate 'all due care' despite his illness. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required to procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
patent denied · Apr 1, 2025

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_15809/2025

This case involved an appeal by NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenging a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding the revocation of EP 2 875 740. The core issue was not the patent's validity, but procedural compliance. NJOY failed to pay the court fees for the appeal and subsequently waived its right to be heard on this point. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the entire appeal by default under Rule 229.4 RoP.
patent mixed · Apr 1, 2025

BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · T(CMA(PT)) No.107 of 2023

Bigtec Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.625/CHE/2011 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The application related to a method and kit for detecting Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) using specific nucleotide sequences. Bigtec argued that their claimed sequences demonstrated unexpected effects over prior art, countering objections regarding lack of inventive step and patentability under Section 3(c). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
patent denied · Mar 31, 2025

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · ORD_15677/2025

This UPC decision addresses procedural applications concerning rectification and cost allocation following a decision by default. The court established strict criteria for rectifying judicial orders, emphasizing that such corrections must be limited to clear clerical errors or obvious slips, not substantive omissions like the failure to address costs. Furthermore, the panel ruled that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not require its own merits-based cost determination. The costs incurred in this phase must instead be assessed within the main proceedings.
patent granted · Mar 31, 2025

JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Astronergy Europe GmbH; Astronergy GmbH; Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH; Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V.; Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_7618/2025

This UPC decision addressed a critical procedural issue regarding the synchronization of proceedings between the Unified Patent Court and the European Patent Office. The claimant successfully sought permission to amend its infringement claims, incorporating changes made during EPO opposition proceedings and introducing a newly discovered infringing product. The court emphasized that true synchronization requires the ability to translate EPO amendments into actionable claim versions within the UPC action, setting important procedural boundaries for patent litigation practitioners.
patent denied · Mar 31, 2025

ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.

Luxembourg (LU) · App_15086/2025

This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
patent dismissed · Mar 31, 2025

Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · App_12551/2025

In this UPC decision, the Board of Appeal allowed Scandit AG to withdraw its application for an interim injunction against Hand Held Products, Inc., concerning patent EP 3 866 051. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties and permitted under Rule 265.1 VerfO. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably before a final judgment is reached.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 29, 2025

Levi Strauss And Company v.Umesh Chauhan

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM.)/962/2022

Levi Strauss And Company filed a suit against Umesh Chauhan and Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa alleging infringement of their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to clothing and jeans. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient positive evidence to corroborate the local commissioner's report, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
patent partially granted · Mar 28, 2025

ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG

Luxembourg (LU) · App_14792/2025

This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
patent pending · Mar 27, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · ORD_15005/2025

This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a procedural motion regarding information disclosure (Rule 191(2) EPC). The claimants sought to have the court determine if certain requested information was non-essential before proceeding with the disclosure request. The UPC ruled that while this preliminary determination is inadmissible, the disclosure request itself can be made conditionally, pending the outcome of the main infringement case. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility in balancing discovery needs against third-party rights.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 27, 2025

Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs

Bombay High Court · COMM MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.25369 OF 2023

The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
patent partially granted · Mar 26, 2025

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · App_5154/2025

This decision addressed an application for access to court files (Rule 262) within a complex UPC infringement case. The Court acknowledged the general public interest in observing proceedings but prioritized protecting sensitive information and mitigating technical risks associated with the CMS workflow system. Consequently, it granted limited access to redacted versions of documents, setting a precedent for balancing transparency against confidentiality in high-stakes UPC litigation.
patent denied · Mar 26, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · ORD_14757/2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
1 •••414243•••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 →