Patent Cases

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art publications. The petition focuses on the device’s carrier structure and the angled AWG surface.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01567

Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.

· IPR2025-01584

WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.

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

· IPR2025-01564

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.

Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01593

Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.

WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.

· IPR2025-01583

WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01567

Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC

· IPR2025-01399

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’831 patent, which covers energy‑efficient CNN processing. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.

WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.

· IPR2025-01585

WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.

Curium US LLC v.UniversitÃ¤t Heidelberg et al.

· IPR2025-01582

Curium US LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against the ‘901 patent covering alpha‑emitter PSMA‑targeted therapies, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

patent instituted · Sep 26, 2025

Accelight has filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,042,116 patent covering AWG‑based optical transceiver modules, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references.

Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01593

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01593, allowing the challenger to proceed to a merits review after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent instituted · Sep 26, 2025

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01567

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01567 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The notice also detailed multiple denials across various proceedings.

patent instituted · Sep 26, 2025

Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 26, 2025

Institution for Inter Partes Review (IPR) was granted in IPR2025-01566 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Aet Laboratories Private Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court · 85349301

The suit was filed by Helsinn Healthcare Sa seeking permanent injunction against Aet Laboratories Private Limited and others for infringing its patent IN 426553, which covers compositions for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The court ultimately vacated the existing ad interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction or a prima facie case.

patent interim order · Sep 26, 2025

XX v.YY

Delhi High Court - Orders · 85268394

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which relates to Janus Kinase Inhibitors. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect premises and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.

patent mixed · Sep 26, 2025

Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 83842422

Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.

patent pending · Sep 26, 2025

Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 175666010

The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.

patent remanded · Sep 26, 2025

Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 22196548

Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.

patent pending · Sep 26, 2025

Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 18301326

The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2025

Scantrust v.Advanced Track and Trace

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000335

Scantrust filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 2 364 485, held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), before the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025 and jointly requested its homologation. The court approved the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, ordering that the unredacted version remain confidential and that each party bear its own costs.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2025

Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000334

Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 B1 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex parte application for preservation of evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. DDT alleged that Esde's Seed Counting Machine SD-14010, displayed at the Seed meets Technology 2025 trade fair in the Netherlands, infringed claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The Local Division The Hague granted the ex parte order, authorizing a bailiff to seize the SD-14010 and related documentation, appoint an expert and custodian, and conduct a detailed inspection, subject to conditions including confidentiality arrangements and a requirement that DDT initiate proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2025

SCANTRUST v.ADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000333

Scantrust filed a nullity action before the Central Division of Paris against European patent EP 2 364 485 held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), concerning a method and device for authentication of geometric codes. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025. The court homologated the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the UPC Agreement, allowing it to be enforced as a final decision on the merits, while keeping certain details confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2025

Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.

· PGR2025-00089

Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01481

BOE and Samsung Display have reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01481

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,013,088 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity determinations were made.

Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.

· PGR2025-00089

Shuttleslide, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Sea Swivel’s U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,111, alleging anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of written description based on numerous marine‑accessory references.

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

· IPR2025-01565

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 8,350,763 covering multiband antennas. The challenger alleges the patent is obvious over several earlier references and seeks cancellation of all claims.