Patent Cases

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

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

Page 62 of 424

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory patent. Samsung successfully showed the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi’s battery‑backup design, and Hajeck’s power‑anomaly protection.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB held that claims 1,10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s 9,824,035 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while claims 2,6, and 22 remain valid.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of two Netlist IPRs, leaving the PTAB's decisions final.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
patent instituted · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

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

· IPR2026-00058

TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Oct 27, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2026-00017

Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 27, 2025

Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Supreme Court of India · 74396063

The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
patent interim order · Oct 27, 2025

Pas Agro Foods v.Krbl Limited; Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India; Deputy Registrar of Copyrights

Kerala High Court · 85407130

Pas Agro Foods filed a Special Jurisdiction Case seeking the expungement of trademark and copyright registrations granted to Krbl Limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the petition and arguments, directed that notice be served upon all respondents via speed post and email. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity or ownership of the registered IP rights.
patent mixed · Oct 27, 2025

Capital Foods Private Limited v.Pitambari Products Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 198031396

In a dispute over trademark infringement, Capital Foods Private Limited and Pitambari Products Private Limited reached an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court formalized this compromise, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff while allowing the Defendant limited usage rights for specific packaging (PITAMBARI RUCHIYANA SCHEZWAN HOT & SPICY). This resolution allows the parties to move forward without protracted litigation over damages and accounts.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 27, 2025

Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 171690362

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application for 'PATHKIND LABS'. The core issue was the existence of cited marks owned by the petitioner's director. By presenting an Assignment Deed and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the court found that the ground for rejection had been sufficiently addressed. Consequently, the application was directed to be accepted and advertised in the Trademark Journal.
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000274

« 2. the applicant’s assertions during the grant procedings […] can be seen as an indication of the view of the person skilled in the art at the filing date ». Mais en l’occurrence, le déposant a tiré les conséquences de ses déclarations et les a mises en œuvre en amendant sa demande de brevet, afin d’échapper au grief d’absence de nouveauté, ce qui démontre que RPN considérait bien lui-même à cette époque, que les deux parois parallèles du brevet US628 étaient nécessaires pour espacer les
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000273

This is an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn, brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies collectively referred to as 'Xinji.' The Claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after the standard service via The Hague Service Convention to China, initiated on 2 July 2025, failed to produce a certificate of service despite multiple inquiries. The Claimant proposed service at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf by a German bailiff upon any staff member of the Defendants at their exhibition stand, with alternative methods also proposed.
patent · Oct 24, 2025

Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC

· IPR2026-00013

Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2025

Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC

· IPR2026-00013

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent dismissed · Oct 24, 2025

M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · 3723267

M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2025

M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 47831933

Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2025

M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 167576733

Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
patent · Oct 23, 2025

bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000275

This decision concerns European patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. bioMérieux UK Limited filed a revocation action against the patent, while bioMérieux SA and other bioMérieux group entities filed a counterclaim for revocation in response to an infringement action brought by Labrador Diagnostics in the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Central Division Milan addressed issues including amendments to the patent, auxiliary requests, added subject-matter, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure, costs, and confidentiality. The court established that when a party submits numerous attacks that are unmanageable under principles of proportionality and speed, only the most promising attacks will be assessed on the merits.
patent · Oct 23, 2025

Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01579

LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
patent · Oct 23, 2025

Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01579

Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent · Oct 22, 2025

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000277

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
1 •••616263•••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 →