Patent Cases

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

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

Page 52 of 453

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 56823853

Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 151980653

Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 108077861

The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
patent mixed · Sep 16, 2025

Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 85221514

In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000358

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000357

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a request by the claimant, Dolby International AB, for simultaneous interpretation from German to English at an oral hearing in a patent infringement action. The court allowed Dolby to hire an interpreter at its own cost to use the existing interpretation equipment, but rejected the request to have the interpretation costs treated as procedural costs, finding that Dolby was not disproportionately disadvantaged by the German procedural language given that its legal representatives were German-speaking.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare and others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000356

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000355

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000354

Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 15, 2025

Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000353

This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. Defendants 2 and 3 requested security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant, a recently founded Texas-based licensing entity, lacked sufficient financial resources to satisfy a potential cost reimbursement claim. The judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 600,000, and the panel rejected the Claimant's request for review under R. 333 RoP, finding the amount appropriate given the complexity of the proceedings and the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00084

Cytek Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Beckman Coulter’s 2024 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs and lack of written description and enablement for key claim elements such as a “curved mirror” and “semiconductor detector.”
patent · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology

· IPR2025-01546

Bio‑Rad petitions IPR to invalidate Caltech’s ’797 patent on multiplex PCR signal encoding, asserting the claims are obvious over Jouvenot and other prior art.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01512

Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025

Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00084

The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged patent claims were unpatentable.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology

· IPR2025-01546

The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent instituted · Sep 15, 2025

Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01512

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 15, 2025

Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 138046163

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patents (Suit Patents) through the sale and distribution of the Honor 200 series smartphones. The court found a prima facie case of infringement, considering test analyses and tear down reports.
patent pending · Sep 15, 2025

3Sk Innovations Private Ltd v.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd Esfbl

Delhi High Court - Orders · 29880221

The parties appeared before the Delhi High Court for case management proceedings. The court framed several issues concerning territorial jurisdiction, patent infringement, ownership rights, and the validity/revocation of two specific patents (IN'627 and IN'730). Furthermore, the Confidentiality Club was constituted to manage the exchange of sealed data between the parties.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 12, 2025

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000363

Anordnung
patent LITIGATION · Sep 12, 2025

Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000362

Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 12, 2025

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

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000361

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court rejected the claimant TRUMPF's applications for admission of new auxiliary requests for patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP and for admission of a corresponding further submission under R. 36 RoP, finding the claimant's justification insufficient to enable the court to exercise its discretion.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 12, 2025

bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager GmbH, Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000360

The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court found that Windhager GmbH directly infringed EP 2 223 589 B1, which protects a bed/green area edging with lockable sheet metal strips, by offering and selling such edgings on its website. The court held that offering or supplying all components of a patented product designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ. The counterclaim for revocation of the patent was dismissed, and the claims against the individual managing directors were rejected.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 12, 2025

HMD Global Oy v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Application No. APP_34862/2025)

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000359

HMD Global Oy, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent EP3667981 was granted). The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that both parties were international companies in comparable situations and that, in the event of an equal balance of interests, the position of the defendant—who had not initiated the action and was bound by strict time limits—must prevail.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2025

Unnamed Case from upc_ip.db v.Ex Parte

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000366

Order
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2025

Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc. and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000365

Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2025

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000364

Provisional order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning a confidentiality request accompanying the defendants' statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The court granted confidential treatment to the marked technical information in the defense and counterclaim for revocation, while expanding access to six additional named persons from the claimant's side, but rejected protection for a witness name and excluded one proposed technical expert due to insufficient information.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 11, 2025

Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 39134486

Saint Gobain Glass France appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201717045317), titled 'Material comprising a stack of thin layers', by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the claimed invention lacked technical advancement over prior art.
1 •••515253•••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 →