Patent Cases

The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.

patent · Jul 22, 2025

MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.

patent · Jul 22, 2025

MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

patent denied · Jul 22, 2025

MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.

MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

patent pending · Jul 22, 2025

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.

Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 32977767

This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000536

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1, which relates to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the proceedings were stayed pending the Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form (EP 464 B2). The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement, which the Court confirmed by decision, ordering partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides and keeping certain terms of the agreement confidential.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000535

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

An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000534

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.

This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities regarding European Patent EP3852468. Sun Patent Trust filed applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to classify certain parts of its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential or highly confidential. The court granted the application in part, classifying specific information as confidential (accessible to Defendants' representatives, legal team, and named employees who signed NDAs) and highly confidential (restricted to the Defendants' representative, his legal team, and three named VIVO employees).

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000533

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.

Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000532

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, VAB-Logistik UAB, SMIS International OÜ, Meril GmbH, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000531

Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a FRAND interim hearing in patent infringement proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court set out a timetable for further pleadings on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file until August 11, 2025, and Lenovo to respond until September 1, 2025. The order also confirmed upcoming dates for a further interim hearing (September 25, 2025, by video conference) and the main oral hearing (November 19, 2025, in person in Munich).

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000530

Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review to overturn the institution of XiFi Networks’ patent, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and noting inconsistent claim‑construction positions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00068

The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00068

XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00067

The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 21, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00067

XiFi Networks seeks Director Review to overturn eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate PTAB policy and merit vacating institution.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,917,367, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC