Patent Cases

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000284

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000283

AX Wireless, LLC v.1) Xiaomi Inc. 2) Xiaomi Corporation 3) Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH 4) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.

AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000282

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare et al.

This is a provisional measures order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division in The Hague, concerning European patent EP4344633. Applicant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with its FreeStyle Libre product, sought provisional measures against Defendants Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in connection with their GlucoMen iCan CGM system. The dispute centers on an alleged infringement of Abbott's unitary patent relating to CGM technology, with Sinocare manufacturing the device and Menarini holding exclusive distribution rights in over 20 European countries.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

· IPR2026-00046

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.

patent denied · Oct 17, 2025

Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00034

Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.

Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2026-00034

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.

patent pending · Oct 17, 2025

Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 36984613

Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.

Supreme Court of India · 80572430

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited

Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.

patent pending · Oct 17, 2025

Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 68397941

Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.

patent mixed · Oct 17, 2025

Krbl Limited v.Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 86798305

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 71208741

Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 30559286

Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.

patent mixed · Oct 17, 2025

Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Wazahat Choudhary

Delhi High Court - Orders · 129616379

In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 173487560

The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Vivanta Stays & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against Vivanta Stays & Ors. The court recognized 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark and immediately restrained the defendants from using similar marks, such as VIVANTA STAYS/VIVANTA REALTY, both online and offline. Furthermore, the order mandated the immediate takedown of infringing websites and domain names, providing swift protection to the plaintiff's brand reputation.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000289

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.1) Insulet Corporation; 2) EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - UPC_CFI_941/2025 Final Order pursuant to Rule 262.1 b) RoP of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/10/2025 APPLICANT Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP - Breite Str. 29, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany Represent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000288

Brita SE v.1) AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o, 2. AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, 3. Gasmarine BV Srl, 4. MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée

1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 16.10.2025 KLÄGERIN UND NICHTIGKEITSWIDERBEKLAGTE Brita SE, gesetzlich vertreten durch den Vorstand Markus Hankammer, Stefan Rudolf Jonitz und Dr. Rüdiger Kraege, Heinz-Hankammer-Straße 1, 652

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000287

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. a. o.

Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01561

Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.

· IPR2026-00068

Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.

Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.

· IPR2025-01536

Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.

patent pending · Oct 16, 2025

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01561

Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.

Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 131669927

Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.

patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 16, 2025

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 181010047

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000293

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. et. al.

This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for invalidity regarding European Patent EP 3 567 731. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff Huawei Technologies requested permission to withdraw the infringement action against both defendants with the consent of Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 requested permission to withdraw its counterclaim for invalidity with the plaintiff's consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim granted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the court fees paid by each party, while declining to issue a cost decision since neither party filed cost applications.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000292

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

All costs relating to the enforcement do not fall within the scope of Rule 151 RoP. The wording of Rule 150 RoP does not allow for the compensation of costs incurred after the publication of the decision. The

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000291

Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000290

Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.

This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. EP 2 755 901 B1, brought by Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The dispute relates to the German, French, and Dutch portions of the European patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued headnotes addressing the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, the standard for inventive step regarding material selection, and issues of equivalence.

NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC

· IPR2026-00011

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP

· IPR2025-01559

Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.