Patent Cases

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

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

Page 5 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Mar 18, 2026

Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, Maguin SAS v.Tiru

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000019

This case before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) concerned revocation actions against European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 owned by Tiru, relating to a waste incineration installation and associated process. The claimants (Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, and Maguin SAS) sought revocation of the patent on grounds including Article 123(3) EPC (extension of protection), prior public use, and lack of inventive step. The court rejected the revocation requests and maintained the patent in modified form according to Tiru's subsidiary request 2.0 (rectified version), with costs split 60% to the claimants and 40% to Tiru.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.

· PGR2026-00032

Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC

· IPR2026-00248

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC

· IPR2026-00247

Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.

· IPR2026-00274

Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC

· IPR2026-00298

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.

· IPR2026-00275

Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
patent · Mar 18, 2026

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC

· IPR2026-00249

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent pending · Mar 18, 2026

Apriori Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 72590295

Apriori Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision dated 15.12.2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202017008435. The court issued notice to the respondent and set a date for returnable hearing.
patent · Mar 17, 2026

Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.

· PGR2026-00023

Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Mar 17, 2026

VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC

· IPR2026-00310

VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 17, 2026

Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 8354299

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
patent remanded · Mar 17, 2026

Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 132422739

Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
patent defendant favorable · Mar 17, 2026

Geron Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 32951888

Geron Corporation appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its application concerning telomerase inhibitors. The core dispute was whether the claimed 'in vitro screening method' was, in substance, a diagnostic process that falls under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court ultimately held that despite being drafted as a screening method, the claims covered a diagnostic process essential to medical decision-making and were therefore not patentable.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 16, 2026

Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 16, 2026

TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000025

Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, directed at a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fiber. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the infringement claim against IPG Laser's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered the defendant to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 16, 2026

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000024

Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
patent · Mar 16, 2026

Vivint LLC v.Zinser, Duke

· IPR2026-00300

Vivint LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 21‑47 of U.S. Patent 7,583,191, asserting they are obvious over the Schranz prior‑art reference.
patent · Mar 16, 2026

Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC

· IPR2026-00303

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
patent · Mar 16, 2026

QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.

· IPR2026-00291

QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent dismissed · Mar 16, 2026

Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 84812589

Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting the grant of a patent application. The Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal, which was accepted by the Respondent.
patent interim order · Mar 16, 2026

Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another

Delhi High Court - Orders · 19598202

The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead expert evidence regarding the potential revocation of an impugned patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to file the necessary evidence affidavit.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 13, 2026

La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000029

This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The defendants applied for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing the claimant's financial position posed a serious risk of non-recovery. The Court partially granted the request, ordering the claimant to provide security of €75,000 within six weeks, reduced from the requested €112,000, while rejecting the claimant's argument that its SME status should preclude or further reduce the security.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 13, 2026

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000028

This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
patent LITIGATION · Mar 13, 2026

Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, OpenAI LP, OpenAI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity v.Keeex SAS

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000027

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court reversed the Paris Local Division's order that had rejected preliminary objections challenging its international jurisdiction in a patent infringement action brought by Keeex SAS concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that the UPC's jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 is limited to the territory of UPC member states and cannot extend to alleged infringement of national patent parts in non-member states such as Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland.
patent · Mar 13, 2026

Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00288

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
patent · Mar 13, 2026

Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00287

Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
patent · Mar 13, 2026

Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00289

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent pending · Mar 13, 2026

Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 186868389

Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 13, 2026

International Bridge Technologies Middle East DMCC v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, (2)(1)(1)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi · 98985490

The assessee, a UAE-based company engaged in bridge design, challenged an assessment order classifying professional fees received for providing Design Support Services for the Versova-Bandra Sea Link Project as taxable royalty. The assessee argued that since ownership of the designs was outrightly transferred to Systra India, it constituted a sale of intellectual property rather than a right to use, thus not falling under the DTAA definition of royalty.
1 •••456•••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 →