Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 75 of 424

patent · Sep 16, 2025

MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000352

This order concerns an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 567 731. Huawei agreed to produce most of the identified license agreements but objected to the production of two additional agreements relating exclusively to network infrastructure products. The Local Chamber Mannheim partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements listed on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 statement, while declining to order production of certain other agreements.
patent · Sep 16, 2025

Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office (EPO)

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000351

1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande d'annulation d'une décision prise par l'Office de rejet d'une demande d'effet unitaire (R. 97 RdP) rendue le 16 septembre 2025 EN-TETE • Conformément aux dispositions de la Règle 85(2) RdP,
patent · Sep 16, 2025

Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC

· IPR2025-01538

Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.

· IPR2025-01540

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 56823853

Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 151980653

Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 16, 2025

Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 108077861

The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 16, 2025

M/s.Darshan International v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Gi

Madras High Court · 58318963

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Darshan International, allowing them to proceed with their trademark registration for 'Darshan Incense.' The court addressed the issue of non-receipt of the notice of opposition by the petitioner, which led to the abandonment of their application. Citing a similar precedent, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the application and permit the petitioner to file a counter statement, ensuring they receive a fair opportunity to defend their mark.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000358

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Dolby International AB v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000357

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, arguing that its representatives did not speak German. The defendants indicated they did not require interpretation and opposed cost-sharing. The court found the request admissible, having been filed within the deadline under Rule 109.1 RoP and meeting the formal requirements of Rule 109(a)-(d) RoP.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000356

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi A/S v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000355

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000354

Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
patent · Sep 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01480

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology

· IPR2025-01546

The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent instituted · Sep 15, 2025

Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-01512

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 15, 2025

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

Delhi High Court - Orders · 138046163

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patents (Suit Patents) through the sale and distribution of the Honor 200 series smartphones. The court found a prima facie case of infringement, considering test analyses and tear down reports.
patent pending · Sep 15, 2025

3Sk Innovations Private Ltd v.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd Esfbl

Delhi High Court - Orders · 29880221

The parties appeared before the Delhi High Court for case management proceedings. The court framed several issues concerning territorial jurisdiction, patent infringement, ownership rights, and the validity/revocation of two specific patents (IN'627 and IN'730). Furthermore, the Confidentiality Club was constituted to manage the exchange of sealed data between the parties.
patent mixed · Sep 15, 2025

Exotic Mile v.Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · 130431669

The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.
patent mixed · Sep 15, 2025

Hardwyn India Limited And Anr v.Rajenndra Engitech Llp

Delhi High Court - Orders · 31461192

The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Hardwyn India Limited and Rajenndra Engitech LLP, focusing on the use of the mark 'HARDVIN' which was deemed deceptively similar to 'HARDWYN'. The court accepted a comprehensive undertaking from the defendant, requiring them to cease using the impugned mark and initiate its withdrawal from the Trademark Registry. Consequently, an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, recognizing the mutual interest in resolution, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 15, 2025

Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 64235584

The Delhi High Court granted the petition filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., directing the rectification of Trademark Registration No. 5849026 held by Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that the goods and service details in Class 11 be amended to specifically reflect 'Bathroom and Sanitary fittings and accessories,' thereby limiting the scope of the trademark registration. This decision allows the petitioner to achieve a more precise definition of the registered goods, aligning with prior agreements.
patent · Sep 12, 2025

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000363

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The defendant requested that certain sections of the claimant's reply brief dated August 25, 2025 be disregarded under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claimant was only permitted to respond to the auxiliary request for patent amendment under Rule 32.3 RoP, and not to address the patent in its granted form. The defendant alternatively sought leave to reply to those sections and an extension of the reply deadline under Rule 336 RoP.
patent · Sep 12, 2025

Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000362

Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
patent · Sep 12, 2025

Windhager Handels GmbH v.bellissa HAAS GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000360

The plaintiff bellissa HAAS GmbH, sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 concerning a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip, sued Windhager GmbH and two individual defendants for alleged direct, and alternatively indirect, literal infringement of the patent. The patent, valid in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, claims an edging for beds and green areas consisting of at least two sheet metal strips with interlocking tongue-and-slot connection ends. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued headnotes clarifying that offering or supplying all components designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct patent infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ, and that individual sale of a coordinated component likewise constitutes direct infringement when assembly is indicated or otherwise obvious.
patent · Sep 12, 2025

HMD Global Oy v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000359

The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Mannheim granted HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. based on European patent EP3667981. The defendant argued that English was the predominant language in mobile communications technology, that the evidence and ETSI standard specifications were predominantly in English, and that conducting proceedings in German imposed significant translation burdens and costs. Applying the framework established by the Court of Appeal, the Court weighed all relevant circumstances and found the outcome balanced, holding that in cases of equal weighting, the position of the defendant—who did not initiate the action and faces strict preparation deadlines—shall prevail.
patent · Sep 12, 2025

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000353

This order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought review of an order by the judge-rapporteur requiring it to provide security for costs under Rule 158 RoP. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had requested security for costs, arguing that the claimant, a recently founded US-based licensing entity operating from a co-working space and funded by third-party investors, posed an enforcement and insolvency risk. The claimant opposed, contending that the defendants failed to establish sufficient facts demonstrating a real risk that cost reimbursement could not be satisfied or enforced.
patent · Sep 11, 2025

UPC Decision UPC-000366 v.Respondent

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000366

This case concerns an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) filed by Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. against several defendants, including members of the BEGA group of companies, alleging infringement of European Patent EP3522755B1. The patent relates to a cabinet designed to house a washing machine or washer-dryer at waist level for ergonomic use. The application against the first defendant, Wasombouw B.V., was withdrawn shortly after filing, while the proceedings continued against the remaining defendants. The Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance held an oral hearing on 14 August 2025 and issued its order on 11 September 2025.
patent · Sep 11, 2025

Ona Patents SL v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000365

Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
1 •••747576•••424
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 →