Patent Cases

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

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

Page 70 of 453

patent pending · Aug 6, 2025

ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd

Plaintiffs sought leave to inspect documents filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 30 CPC, which related to disclosure of turnover concerning patented PCA units. The Court constituted a Confidentiality Club to facilitate this inspection, subject to prescribed rules.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 5, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000466

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 5, 2025

igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000465

Default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 912 243 B1, which protects a compact line guide for clean room applications. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, alleged that the Chinese defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., infringed the patent by offering a 'CPY' line guide at the Hannover Messe and through associated catalog distribution. Because the defendant failed to appear or respond, the court granted the plaintiff's claims in full, including a finding of infringement, an injunction, recall and information orders, and provisional cost reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 5, 2025

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000464

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 5, 2025

Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC

· IPR2025-00958

The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.

patent · Aug 5, 2025

Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC

· IPR2025-00958

Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.

patent · Aug 5, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00842

Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Aug 5, 2025

Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00842

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for multiple claims in the audio device patent (11197084). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references, particularly Li and Fujita, renders the claimed earphone structure obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent interim order · Aug 5, 2025

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

Delhi High Court - Orders · 9160777

Largan Precision Co., Ltd filed a suit against Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr. alleging infringement of three specific patents related to camera lens assemblies. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants' Honor 200 series products infringe these patented technologies.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 5, 2025

Mebigo Labs Private Limited v.Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 77190323

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Mebigo Labs Private Limited against Greenhorn Wellness Private Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of copyright infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and trademark dilution by the defendant's use of similar branding ('Story TV'). Furthermore, the court directed Meta Platforms (Defendant No. 2) to suspend specific infringing advertisements on Facebook and Instagram, protecting Mebigo Labs' digital content platform 'KUKU FM'.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS (formerly Virdia Inc.)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000473

This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000472

Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_162/2024) relating to European Patent EP 2 028 981. The court partially granted the Defendant's request for an extension of time to comment on the Claimant's penalty payment request, extending the deadline by two weeks (until 20 August 2025) instead of the three weeks requested. The court reasoned that the discretion to extend time periods must be exercised narrowly, and that the time needed to remedy information deficiencies is distinct from the time needed to comment on a penalty request.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000471

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762. The court decided, with the agreement of both parties, to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ, making an early decision on the course of action before the conclusion of the written procedure.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000470

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1, in which the court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim measures proceedings. The respondent had challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent in its opposition to the application for interim measures, leading the presiding judge to conclude that early addition of a technically qualified judge was appropriate and necessary.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

Moderna, Inc. et al. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000469

This is a confidentiality order (R.262A) issued by the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025) concerning EP2279254, owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order, based on an agreement reached between the parties, establishes a confidentiality regime and confidentiality club to protect certain information Moderna wishes to submit regarding the composition and manufacturing process of its Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC, and Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000468

This is a preliminary order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2437696. The Claimant, Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., filed an R.263 application seeking leave to amend its case to base its claims on the B2 version of the patent instead of the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The court dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, holding that under Article 68 EPC, the B1 version had already been retroactively replaced by the B2 version, and admitted the revised Statement of Claim into the proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 4, 2025

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000467

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

PacifiCorp challenges the patent owner’s request for Director Review of IPR2025‑00718, arguing procedural errors, misstatements in prosecution, and that the PTAB is the proper forum. The petition seeks denial of the Director’s discretionary denial under §315(d).

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,926,218. The request relies on statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment of settlement agreements.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

BirchTech Corp. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a referral decision, arguing that proceeding with the IPR would duplicate the ongoing MDL concerning mercury‑control patents and waste resources. The brief cites efficiency concerns and prior PTAB rulings to request denial of institution.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to WEC, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss WEC from the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under applicable statutes.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the institution of an IPR covering mercury‑control technology, arguing that the matter is already efficiently litigated in an MDL. The petition claims the Board’s proceeding would duplicate effort and waste resources.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.

patent · Aug 4, 2025

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

1 •••69 70 71•••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 →