Patent Cases

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

· IPR2025-01359

Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01365

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01367

Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Jul 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01272

Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01367

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01367, allowing Albany International Corp. to challenge Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388.

patent instituted · Jul 30, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01326

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.

patent interim order · Jul 30, 2025

East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors

Calcutta High Court · 172304671

The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.

patent interim order · Jul 30, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Prajna Generics Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 140243335

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds and their uses. The Court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises, obtain accounts, and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.

patent interim order · Jul 30, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 191334714

The Plaintiffs, owners/licensees of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering Ruxolitinib compounds (used in treating Mye), filed a suit against Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize samples of the infringing drug, and gather evidence.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000502

Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. & Others

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000501

Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others

This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000500

Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000499

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.

The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000498

Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited

This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000497

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

Following a merits decision in favor of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning patent EP2145848, Oerlikon sought rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of a costs decision that had awarded €80,000.00 in reimbursable costs. Oerlikon argued that an additional €20,000.00 for the merits phase should have been added to reach a total of €100,000.00. The Court rejected the application, finding that the €80,000.00 figure was consistent throughout both the operative part and the reasoning of the costs decision, and that the contested phrase was merely a typographical error that did not affect the overall calculation.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter, LLC challenges Yondr’s ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over earlier locking‑case references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter has filed a PTAB petition seeking cancellation of Yondr’s lockable‑case patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over earlier security‑case publications. The petition lists seven claims and three statutory grounds.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter and Yondr settled their post‑grant review dispute over patent 12,133,078. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.