Patent Cases

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

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

Page 53 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Sep 10, 2025

Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000367

This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 10, 2025

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2026-00007

Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.

· IPR2026-00039

FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 2009 patent on hot deployment in grid computing, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00035

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01563

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· IPR2025-01420

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2026-00007

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Sep 10, 2025

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01576

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
patent instituted · Sep 10, 2025

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01576

The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2025

Google Commerce Limited & Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL (Confidentiality Order)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000370

This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2025

PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co., Ltd., ECOVACS Europe GmbH, ECOVACS France S.a.r.l., and ECOVACS Robotics Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000369

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 494 446. Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) sought a two-month extension of its deadline to file a statement of defense and counterclaim for invalidity, and an extension of its Preliminary Objection deadline, to unify the procedural timetable with the other three defendants who had not yet been served. The court rejected the application, finding that Defendant 2 did not claim it needed more time for its defense but only sought procedural simplification, and that the interest in procedural unification did not outweigh the claimant's interest in proceeding without delay.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2025

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000368

This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Milan concerned European Patent EP2145848 held by Oerlikon Textile GmbH. After Oerlikon filed an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited and Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, both parties reached a settlement and jointly filed a withdrawal of their respective claims. The court admitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered full compensation of costs between the parties, and declined to refund court fees.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01466

MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01465

MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01464

Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01467

Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 9, 2025

TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01395

Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01465

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01466

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01464

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01395

Top Glory and DP Dream have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Cole Haan’s shoe‑midsole design patent (D768,969), arguing it is anticipated and obvious over several publicly available shoe designs.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01527

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Sep 9, 2025

Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-01467

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2025

TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01395

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent interim order · Sep 9, 2025

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 151070650

The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 8, 2025

HMD Global Oy v.Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Language of Proceedings)

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000374

HMD Global Oy, a Finnish company, requested that the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2609590 was granted. The Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, opposed the change, arguing that HMD Global, as a multinational company, could reasonably handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the position of the defendant must prevail in the balancing of interests, particularly given that HMD Global is based in a non-German speaking country and would face significant translation burdens.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 8, 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, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000373

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 8, 2025

TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000372

TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000371

Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
patent · Sep 7, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01266

Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
1 •••525354•••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 →