Patent Cases

The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent covering clot‑removal systems. Imperative Care successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple claims, prompting full‑scale review.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and the applicability of Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted inter partes review on all fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent, finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments against the hemostasis valve features sufficiently plausible.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01557

BOE and Samsung have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, seeking to store it separately from the patent file and limit access.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose and IngenioSpec have entered a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,829,518, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding.

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

Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01548

Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01557

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01557) before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claims were instituted or decided.

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

Harbor Freight, Generac, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file for Champion's dual‑fuel generator patent.

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

Harbor Freight and Champion Power have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,840,970 covering a dual‑fuel generator. The parties filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals

· PGR2025-00086

Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.

Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2025-01550

Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.

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

Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).

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

· IPR2025-01444

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

patent mixed · Sep 19, 2025

The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.

Grasim Industries Limited And Anr. v.Omni Cement Private Limited And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 151175795

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Grasim Industries Limited against Omni Cement Private Limited. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and permission to file additional pleadings. Crucially, the court directed a Local Commissioner to execute an inventory of goods, seize infringing stock under superdari, and ensure compliance with interim injunction procedures, setting the stage for the substantive dispute over the 'ULTRATECH' trademark.

patent · Sep 18, 2025

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Teleconmmunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000345

ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH Issued on 18/09/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. No. 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town, Guangdong Provinc

patent · Sep 18, 2025

TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD. v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000344

Atlas Global Technologies GmbH brought infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four TP-LINK entities concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The defendants filed a request on May 26, 2025 to stay the proceedings. With the agreement of both parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure until the EPO's decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings are concluded.

patent · Sep 18, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01482

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.

patent pending · Sep 18, 2025

Kowa Company Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 24560563

Kowa Company Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order issued by The Controller of Patents & Anr. on May 14, 2025, concerning Patent Application No. 201717010446.

patent mixed · Sep 18, 2025

Aries Agro Limited & Anr. v.Indiamart Intermesh Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 7336300

The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aries Agro Limited against Indiamart Intermesh Limited. The court granted exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgent need for interim relief to prevent the suppression of infringing business operations. Furthermore, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and set out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements and replication, while also permitting the Plaintiffs to introduce additional documents.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000349

Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Respondent

1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_697/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Merz Therapeutics GmbH Eckenheimer Landstraße 100 60318 Frankfurt am Main - DE 2) Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC Unit 35/36, 6601 Six Forks Road, 4th Fl

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000348

Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent

This order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant (Ona Patents SL) withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants (Apple entities) withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees paid in relation to the counterclaim for revocation, amounting to €8,000.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000347

Washtower IP B.V., Washtower B.V. v.Respondent

This is a final enforcement order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP35227555, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following an earlier order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and authorized electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations into German and Polish.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000346

InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Disney Electronic Content, Inc., BAMTech LLC / BAMTech Media / Disney Streaming Services (LLC) / Disney Streaming, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC / Disney Entertainment Operations LLC, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Interactive, Disne

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.