Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 52 of 424

patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2025

YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC_3893593071

This is an Order of the Court of Appeal concerning an Application for provisional measures under Rule 206 RoP. The Court addressed issues of competence of local divisions, urgency, and interim award of costs in provisional measures proceedings. The Order establishes that Rule 19.5 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to provisional measures proceedings, that there is no hierarchy between the competence grounds in Art. 33(1)(a) and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that competence assessment should be cursory rather than comprehensive. The Court also held that an interim award of costs up to half of the applicable ceiling is generally appropriate in provisional measures proceedings.
patent remanded · Nov 28, 2025

M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office

Madras High Court · 77284003

TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
patent mixed · Nov 28, 2025

Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman

Bombay High Court · 6010864

The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 28, 2025

Mir Mahamood Ali & Ors. v.Mir Mukkaram Ali

Madras High Court · 2729711

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the expungement of the respondent’s name from the Copyright Register. The dispute centered on a conflict where the respondent was incorrectly listed as the owner of the artistic features of the 'Sagar Homeo Stores' trademark, despite the petitioners being the rightful owners. By establishing their prior and valid registration with the Trademark authority, the court found the opposing copyright entry to be illegal and concocted.
patent · Nov 27, 2025

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000216

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
patent · Nov 27, 2025

Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000215

Pari Pharma GmbH filed a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP3397329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head.' The patent, which relates to a nebulizer head and nebulizer system for providing a substance in aerosolized form, is registered with unitary effect and in force in Germany, France, and the UK. The defendant filed an application to amend the patent during the proceedings. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Milan) addressed issues including standing to sue under Art. 47(6) UPCA and the interpretation of schematic figures by the skilled person.
patent · Nov 27, 2025

KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000214

1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/11/2025 concernant R.19 et R.334 (g) RdP DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS (Parties à la procédure au principal - Demandeur) - 5 rue de Lissandre - 13013 - MARSEILLE - FR Repré
patent · Nov 27, 2025

Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000217

The Court of Appeal addressed whether to admit the withdrawal of an appeal by the defendant-appellant Strabag following an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff Swarco, and whether the separate appeal filed by the intervener Chainzone (which supported Strabag) became moot as a result. The Court held that the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal was admissible and that Chainzone's appeal became moot under Rule 360 RoP, because the intervener cannot maintain an independent position contradicting the supported party. The Court further ruled that Chainzone should generally be treated like Strabag regarding costs.
patent · Nov 27, 2025

InterDigital VC Holdings et al., v.Amazon.com, Inc. et. al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000212

The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
patent settled · Nov 27, 2025

M/S. Sudhakar Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahendra Pratap Singh

Madras High Court · 184107259

The Madras High Court closed Original Petition (Trade Marks) No. 58 of 2025 after both parties reached a settlement. The petitioner, M/S. Sudhakar PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., sought to remove or rectify the registration of trademark no. 6322916 in Class 17. The first respondent, Mahendra Pratap Singh, agreed to the removal via an undertaking submitted to the court. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to make the necessary corrections within four weeks.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000219

This order, issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The applicant, Topsoe A/S, had filed an application for correction of an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, which contained address errors regarding the respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The court corrected the addresses of the respondents and the production site of the first respondent in the operative part of the prior order.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. - Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-000218

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00114

Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00118

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
patent · Nov 26, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00119

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent mixed · Nov 26, 2025

Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 29149538

The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
patent mixed · Nov 26, 2025

Jyoti Sharma (Trading As Akhand Bharat Enterprises) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 191185628

The Delhi High Court allowed Jyoti Sharma's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register a device mark. The court found that the original refusal order contained significant factual errors, incorrectly characterizing the application as a word mark for services when it was actually a device mark for goods in Class-9. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, without prejudging the merits of the registration claim.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001729

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001724

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001719

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency of disclosure, and the framework for analyzing inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001709

This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for establishing inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001684

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001646

This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001645

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001621

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000222

Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on November 21, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the two German respondents, SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, in preparation for a forthcoming main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on November 25, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had been granted on July 5, 2023, without any opposition, and the applicant had withdrawn its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court on the same day it filed the application.
patent · Nov 25, 2025

Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000223

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The decision sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that dependent claims only inform main claim interpretation when they provide more specific descriptions of main claim features, that medical use-format claims inherently require therapeutic effectiveness, and that sufficiency must be assessed from the perspective of the skilled person at the filing or priority date.
1 •••515253•••424
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 →