Patent Cases

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

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

Page 72 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Aug 1, 2025

Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000476

This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 1, 2025

Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000475

This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 1, 2025

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000474

Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 1, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

· IPR2025-00426

Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
patent · Aug 1, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC

· IPR2025-00426

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
patent interim order · Aug 1, 2025

Astellas Pharma Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 136508346

Astellas Pharma Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of its Indian Patent No. 292990 by Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and others. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants 8 and 9 to cease marketing and listing of the infringing product GILTERNIB.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 1, 2025

Aquestia Limited v.Automat Industries Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 113756547

Aquestia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Automat Industries Private Limited and its affiliates for infringing Aquestia's registered patent, 'A Fluid Control Valve' (IN 427050). The plaintiff argued that the defendants were imitating established industry products, including the Series 75 valve, and selling infringing products both domestically and internationally. After considering arguments regarding infringement, delay, and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Aquestia Limited.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 31, 2025

Novartis AG v.Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000492

This is a decision on costs before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerning Novartis AG's claim for legal cost compensation following the dismissal of Zentiva's application to intervene in related proceedings. Novartis claimed €38,000 in costs but failed to adequately substantiate the proportionality and reasonableness of hiring five law firms to defend against a single intervention application. The court awarded only €3,000, the amount undisputed by Zentiva, finding that Novartis had not met its burden of proof under Rule 156.1 RoP.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 31, 2025

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000491

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 31, 2025

TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000490

This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 31, 2025

Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000489

Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA filed a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 876 490 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. After the interim conference and the suspension of the oral hearing, the proceedings were stayed, and Toyota subsequently applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees (EUR 4,000) to Toyota, finding that the withdrawal occurred before the closure of the oral procedure under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
patent · Jul 31, 2025

FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.

· IPR2025-01366

The document is a January 14, 2021 notice of termination of agreement submitted as an exhibit in IPR2025-01366 between Fresh Products, LLC and Sanastar, Inc. The termination suggests the parties may have settled the dispute.
patent · Jul 31, 2025

Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01343

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of VB Assets’ ’025 patent covering voice‑driven song dedication, arguing the claims are obvious over existing speech‑interface and music‑dedication technologies.
patent · Jul 31, 2025

FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.

· IPR2025-01366

Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 31, 2025

Treibacher Industrie Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 192028882

Treibacher Industrie Ag appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning 'USE OF VANADATES AS OXIDATION CATALYSTS'. The Controller had refused the grant, citing lack of inventive step and issues with amended claims. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the Impugned Order, holding that it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice because it lacked a proper reasoned decision (speaking order). Furthermore, the court found that the Controller neglected to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the Appellant.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2025

Renault SAS (Application for Access to Court File under Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000496

Renault SAS applied for access to the court file and register of proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement and which had been terminated. The court granted Renault access to the specified pleadings and evidence in redacted form, balancing Renault's interest as a member of the public against the parties' confidentiality interests, but excluded court decisions and orders from the scope of access.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2025

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000495

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order threatening the respondent with coercive fines of up to EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance with a prior information disclosure order. The applicant, Aesculap AG, had obtained an order on July 10, 2025 against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, and subsequently notified its intention to enforce the order in full, requesting the respondent to provide information within one month.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2025

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000494

Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2025

N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000493

This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

Regions Bank and USAA filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information, separate from the public patent file.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 30, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power’s generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings as to those parties. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA's automobile insurance patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

Regions Bank and USAA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,159,310 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties argue that termination aligns with statutory policy and practice.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 30, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power have settled their IPR dispute over a generator fuel regulator patent. They jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access and notify the parties of any third‑party requests.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01360

Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01358

Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,529,029, alleging obviousness over the Gross, Davis, and Furukawa references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.

· IPR2025-01357

Zesty.ai filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,650,285, arguing the claims are obvious over the Gross publication (and Gross + Davis for claim 8) under §103. The petition includes an expert declaration supporting unpatentability.
patent · Jul 30, 2025

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01368

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
1 •••717273•••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 →