Patent Cases

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

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

Page 47 of 433

patent partially granted · Feb 20, 2025

CRETES NV v.HYLER BV

Brussels (BE) Local Division · App_6987/2025

In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Brussels addressed a request by CRETES NV to exclude specific new arguments and claims introduced by HYLER BV into ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings. The Court partially granted the request, agreeing to exclude detailed non-infringement arguments and related documents from consideration. This ruling highlights the court's power to manage case complexity and maintain procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 20, 2025

UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/2/2024

The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
patent mixed · Feb 20, 2025

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 423/2016 & I.As. 18701/2014, 20810/2014, 3550/2021

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. initiated legal proceedings against Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl and others concerning a Suit Patent related to an 8/16 modulation method used in data recording on discs. The court addressed complex issues, including the patent's validity under various sections of the Patents Act (such as novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, and non-patentability). Ultimately, after analyzing infringement claims and the defendants' conduct, the judgment focused on determining appropriate FRAND royalty rates for the patented technology.
patent pending · Feb 20, 2025

Evonik Operations Gmbh And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/120/2023

This appeal was filed by Evonik Operations Gmbh challenging an order dated May 2, 2023, which rejected Patent Application No. 201837000665. The court directed the appellants to file an Informal Paper Book and listed the matter for April 2025.
patent granted · Feb 19, 2025

Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · ORD_8499/2025

In a procedural ruling within the UPC Local Division, the court addressed Chainzone Technology's request for access to case files related to EP2643717. Despite initial delays and considerations regarding ongoing proceedings, the court ultimately granted the requested file access. This decision underscores the importance of transparency in UPC proceedings, even when preliminary measures like evidence preservation are involved.
patent settled · Feb 19, 2025

Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_5727/2025

This UPC decision confirms a settlement between Dyson Technology Limited and SharkNinja. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims—the infringement action by Dyson and the revocation counterclaim by SharkNinja. The court accepted this agreement, terminating both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework.
patent dismissed · Feb 19, 2025

Sodastream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB

Luxembourg (LU) · App_1387/2025

This UPC Court of Appeal order concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Aarke AB against a finding of infringement made by the CFI. The court permitted the withdrawal because the claimant, Sodastream Industries Ltd., did not object to the request. While Aarke was deemed the unsuccessful party and liable for costs, the proceedings were closed upon the successful withdrawal.
patent granted · Feb 19, 2025

Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG

Luxembourg (LU) · App_2704/2025

This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the release of security deposits following the withdrawal of infringement actions. Network System Technologies LLC had deposited substantial funds to cover legal costs incurred by Audi AG during the proceedings. Since NTS subsequently withdrew its claims and closed the case at the Munich Local Division, the Court of Appeal granted the application for the full return of these security amounts. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural mechanism for releasing financial guarantees when litigation concludes prematurely.
patent granted · Feb 19, 2025

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG

Luxembourg (LU) · App_2709/2025

In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
patent granted · Feb 19, 2025

Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S Machinery B.V.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_CFI_16/2025

This procedural order addressed the scope of access to an expert's report following a seizure of documents related to alleged patent infringement (EP4171996). The Court balanced the need for the claimant to assess its case against the defendant's interests in confidentiality. By finding that the Defendant had not raised objections and the information was limited, the UPC granted access to specific employees of the claimant, allowing them to evaluate potential infringement and determine next steps.
patent settled · Feb 19, 2025

Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_5119/2025

In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich terminated both an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited and a counterclaim for patent invalidity filed by SharkNinja. The termination was based on a mutual agreement between the parties to withdraw all claims in both proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can lead to swift procedural closure within the UPC framework.
patent pending · Feb 19, 2025

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_7738/2025

In this procedural order concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, the UPC Local Division addressed a request for an extension of time periods. The Court balanced the principle of strict adherence to statutory deadlines against practical realities, specifically noting mutual holiday absences in Europe and China. Although the main request for three weeks was denied, the court granted a one-week extension to ensure procedural fairness across all defendants involved in the infringement action.
patent granted · Feb 19, 2025

ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, E-LAIN SAS, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, XPENG MOTORS (Germany) GmbH, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Sweden) AB, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS (Danemark) ApS, EJNER HESSEL A/S

Paris (FR) Local Division · ORD_8329/2025

This procedural order addressed POSCO's request to access confidential pleadings and evidence in an infringement action brought by ArcelorMittal against the XPENG group. POSCO sought access to inform its parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO regarding patent EP3290200, which is central to both actions. The Court ultimately granted limited access, recognizing that claim interpretation must be consistent across both infringement and revocation proceedings, while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive technical exhibits.
patent denied · Feb 19, 2025

SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · ORD_24915/2024

In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
patent denied · Feb 19, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_112/2025

This UPC decision addressed an application for provisional measures (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction) filed by Nokia against Sunmi Technology in the context of a dispute involving standard essential patents (SEPs). The court provided detailed legal guidance on when infringement is threatened and how Anti-Suit Injunctions are treated under the UPC framework. While the specific request for injunction was ultimately dismissed, the ruling offers significant clarity to practitioners regarding the threshold for provisional measures and the nature of rights violations in complex cross-border disputes.
patent denied · Feb 19, 2025

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · ORD_65550/2024

Lionra Technologies Ltd. sued Cisco Systems for infringing its European patent EP2201740, which covers methods for fast packet processing in wireless networks aimed at reducing latency. The case also involved a counterclaim by the defendants challenging the validity of the patent. The UPC Local Chamber ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive patent interpretation under Article 69 EPC when assessing complex networking technologies.
patent pending · Feb 18, 2025

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 540/2016 & CS(COMM) 1119/2016 (I.A. 5639/2022 and I.A. 2912/2022)

The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
patent remanded · Feb 18, 2025

Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · CMA(PT)/35/2024

Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
patent pending · Feb 18, 2025

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 540/2016 & CS(COMM) 1119/2016 (I.A. 5639/2022 & I.A. 2912/2022)

The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
patent mixed · Feb 18, 2025

Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 48/2022

Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
patent denied · Feb 17, 2025

AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · App_56087/2024

In a revocation action concerning EP3 822 805 B1, AYLO PREMIUM LTD sought security for legal costs from DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing high insolvency risks within the Defendant's corporate group. However, the UPC Central Division rejected this request. The Court found that the Defendant provided sufficient evidence of its solvency, including a declaration from EchoStar undertaking to cover potential costs. This decision highlights how financial stability and supporting declarations can influence procedural rulings in complex patent litigation.
patent dismissed · Feb 17, 2025

Per Aarsleff A/S v.IMS Robotics GmbH and IMS Robotics Nordic A/S

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_6774/2025

In a procedural decision concerning EP 2 129 956, the Unified Patent Court allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. The Claimant withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This case highlights how UPC proceedings can be concluded amicably through mutual consent, even when complex actions are involved. Practitioners should note that while the main dispute was dropped, the court still managed the procedural aspects, including setting the value in dispute and ordering partial reimbursement of court fees.
patent pending · Feb 17, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS

Paris (FR) Local Division · ORD_598577/2023

This UPC procedural order sets the stage for a complex infringement case involving advanced electronic components. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd sued Laser Components SAS over patent EP3404726, focusing on specific electrode structures in PKB chips. The court confirmed key legal and factual disputes, including the interpretation of technical terms and the weight given to expert analysis. The parties have now moved into the oral hearing phase scheduled for March 13, 2025.
patent partially granted · Feb 17, 2025

Imbox Protection A/S v.Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · ORD_68981/2024

This UPC case involved an application to preserve evidence concerning the product EXPRO HUB. Although the Applicant ultimately withdrew its request for preservation measures, the Court made significant rulings regarding costs and confidentiality. The court confirmed that legal cost ceilings apply jointly across multiple defendants in such proceedings. Crucially, it also imposed strict restrictions on the use of confidential information shared by the Defendants, setting a precedent for protecting trade secrets even when initial applications fail.
patent pending · Feb 17, 2025

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_66551/2024

This UPC order addresses procedural rectifications requested by Meril GmbH in the infringement case concerning Edwards Lifesciences' heart valve patent (EP 3 646 825). The defendants sought corrections to technical descriptions, jurisdictional statements, and references to prior art/expert opinions within the original decision. The court accepted several of these amendments, ensuring accuracy in the record while maintaining the ongoing nature of the dispute.
patent denied · Feb 15, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · App_5366/2025

This UPC procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against INSULET. The Court ruled that since the underlying infringement case on the merits was still pending, costs could not be awarded based solely on the PI outcome. The ruling reinforces the principle that in complex patent litigation, particularly when an interim measure is followed by a full trial, cost assessment must wait until the final judgment.
patent denied · Feb 15, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · App_65673/2024

This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
patent granted · Feb 14, 2025

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited; Umedwings Netherlands B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_67504/2024

In a significant ruling concerning provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal sided with Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., granting an injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The court set aside the initial CFI decision which had found potential added matter in the patent claims. This case highlights the high bar for obtaining preliminary relief while also providing clarity on how general injunctions can be justified based on a single type of infringement, making it crucial reading for medical device IP practitioners.
patent denied · Feb 14, 2025

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific

Munich (DE) Local Division · App_51844/2024

In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
patent pending · Feb 14, 2025

Parle Elizabeth Tools Private Limited v.Pacific Tools Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 2/2025

The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation of patent number 420765, which was granted in favour of respondent no.1. The court allowed an application for exemption from filing copies and listed the main petition for further proceedings.
1 •••464748•••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 →