Patent Cases

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

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

Page 56 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Sep 4, 2025

UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.

patent interim order · Sep 4, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 70908167

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 4, 2025

Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark

Calcutta High Court · 82695785

Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 3, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai Ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000387

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 3, 2025

Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000386

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 805 415. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) requested an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, citing pending laboratory analyses of foil material relevant to prior art and prior use defenses. The plaintiff (Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.) opposed the extension. The court granted a one-week extension to September 16, 2025, finding the defendants' reasons partially justified but rejecting the longer extension as unnecessary.

patent settled · Sep 3, 2025

Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited

Madras High Court · 6011601

Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.

patent interim order · Sep 3, 2025

Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142148538

The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2025

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000391

This order concerns a request for rectification of a decision on costs issued on 21 July 2025 in proceedings involving patent EP 3 769 722. The Defendants sought rectification, arguing that the Court had omitted to expressly order the Claimant to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. The Court dismissed the requests, holding that the original cost allocation (Defendants to reimburse 100% of the Claimant's costs in the infringement action and 75% in the counterclaim for revocation, without deduction for any share of the Defendants' costs) was a permissible and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and did not constitute an obvious slip.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2025

Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000390

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2025

Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000389

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2025

CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000388

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.

patent interim order · Sep 2, 2025

Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others

Delhi High Court - Orders · 39885681

Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 2, 2025

Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs

Calcutta High Court · 50479366

Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 1, 2025

Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000394

Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 1, 2025

KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000393

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action and associated revocation counterclaim regarding European Patent EP 2 133 289. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension of its deadline for filing its infringement reply, response to the revocation counterclaim, and any patent amendment request, citing mutual vacation absences and competing deadlines. The court partially granted the request, extending the deadline only to September 5, 2025, rather than the requested September 9, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend and conflicting with the scheduled interim hearing.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 1, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000392

This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. regarding European patent EP 3 926 698. Seoul Viosys argued that the Central Division lacked competence under Article 33(4) UPCA because the patent was already subject to a parallel infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between the same parties pending before the Court of Appeal, contending that Emporia UK was a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Emporia UK was a straw company for ex-pert klein GmbH.

patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.

patent denied · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.

patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.

patent · Sep 1, 2025

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.

· IPR2025-00427

Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.

patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.

patent · Sep 1, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00429

Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 1, 2025

Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors

Calcutta High Court · 37980608

Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 1, 2025

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 174122202

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patent · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01499

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

patent · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01498

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01479

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,991 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01477

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01476

BOE Technology and Samsung Display jointly settled eight IPR challenges to Patent 10,541,279, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.

1 •••55 56 57•••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 →