Patent Cases

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

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

Page 76 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Jul 24, 2025

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000511

Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant denial of institution.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

Court decision.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.
patent denied · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01344

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jul 24, 2025

Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.

· IPR2025-01180

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2025

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-01342

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01342 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2025

Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.

· IPR2025-01180

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent pending · Jul 24, 2025

Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 103538731

Provivi, Inc. challenged an order of refusal dated 30.05.2023 passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order summarily rejected the application without examining the submissions made in response to the First Examination Report (FER).
patent pending · Jul 24, 2025

Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 96685072

Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
patent mixed · Jul 24, 2025

ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 96194212

ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 23, 2025

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000523

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 726 883, in which the Claimant QIAGEN Sciences, LLC sought an extension of time to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation. The Defendants had filed a confidentiality application alongside their defence, delaying the Claimant's access to unredacted documents. The court granted the extension, with the Defendants' consent, extending the deadlines to 15 September 2025.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 23, 2025

Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V. and Others

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000522

Visibly Inc. appealed an order of the Hamburg Local Division concerning security for legal costs in its patent infringement action against Easee. After the proceedings were stayed due to insolvency proceedings against the Easee companies, Visibly applied to withdraw the appeal citing an out-of-court settlement, to which Easee consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Visibly.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 23, 2025

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000521

This enforcement proceeding arose from a decision of 2 April 2025 in UPC_CFI_365/2023 concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, in which FUJIFILM sought to enforce operative parts requiring the Kodak defendants to provide information, destroy infringing embodiments, recall products, and remove them from channels of commerce. The Mannheim Local Division found that the defendants had failed to comply with these obligations despite proper notification and service, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding lack of warning and insufficient translations. The court imposed a three-pronged penalty regime including a lump-sum payment of €100,000, daily penalties of €2,500 until 4 August 2025, and escalated penalties of €10,000 per day thereafter.
patent instituted · Jul 23, 2025

SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01338

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
patent · Jul 23, 2025

SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01338

Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
patent · Jul 23, 2025

FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.

· IPR2025-01339

Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
patent · Jul 23, 2025

SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01338

Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
patent · Jul 23, 2025

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01263

Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jul 23, 2025

FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.

· IPR2025-01339

Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
patent dismissed · Jul 23, 2025

Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited

Karnataka High Court · 140618057

The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
patent dismissed · Jul 23, 2025

Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 48217492

Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 23, 2025

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court · 103228643

The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 22, 2025

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000529

This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 22, 2025

Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000528

This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 22, 2025

TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000527

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU sought joinder of its parallel infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN, transfer of the defendants' counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division Paris (already seized by VEOLIA PROPRETE's revocation action), and a stay of the infringement proceedings. The panel ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, but rejected the request for a stay of the infringement proceedings at this stage.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 22, 2025

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000526

This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
1 •••757677•••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 →