Patent Cases

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00876

Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00876

Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00876

The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 26 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN caching patent. The petition relies on obviousness over Kenner and on combinations with Vetter, Rekimoto, and Boyles, and also challenges claim 28 under §112. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute review.

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

· IPR2025-00989

Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2025-00987

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

· IPR2025-00959

The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000384

Belparts Group N.V. v.Respondent

Belparts Group N.V. filed an application under Rule 302.3 of the Rules of Procedure seeking consolidation of its infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich with a counterclaim for infringement pending before the Central Division Paris, both based on European patent EP 3 812 870. Despite the defendants' consent, the Presiding Judge dismissed the application, holding that the statutory prerequisite of proceedings being before the same local, regional, or central division was not satisfied.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000383

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK)

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1 relating to a robot localization method, filed an application on September 2, 2025, parallel to a main infringement action, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stands of Roborock (HK) Limited at the IFA trade fair in Berlin (September 5–9, 2025). The patent had previously been opted out but the opt-out was withdrawn on July 16, 2025. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on September 4, 2025, concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000382

MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent

This case concerns a request for security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sued MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH filed a counterclaim for revocation. MediaTek Germany GmbH sought an order requiring Huawei to post security of €239,000 within six weeks, arguing that enforcement of a cost decision against the Chinese claimant would be de facto impossible or significantly more difficult. Huawei opposed the request, contending that it has consistently met its payment obligations in prior proceedings and that the amount demanded was excessive.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000381

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Respondent

1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_552/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Applicant) - 333 Lakeside Drive - 94404 - Foster City - US Rep

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000380

Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 385 739. The plaintiff, UERAN Technology LLC, has brought claims against seven Xiaomi group entities. Defendant 5, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, requested the court to establish a unified deadline regime for all defendants and to extend the deadlines for reply and rejoinder by two weeks each to account for the Christmas and Easter holiday periods.

patent interim order · Sep 4, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 70908167

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 4, 2025

Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark

Calcutta High Court · 82695785

Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.

patent · Sep 3, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000387

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.

patent · Sep 3, 2025

Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, Zapp AG v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000386

This procedural order concerns an application by the defendants for an extension of the deadline to file their statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants sought an extension from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, while the plaintiff opposed the request and proposed at most a one-week extension. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf applied Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure, noting that extensions should be granted only in justified exceptional cases and that parties must file extension requests as soon as it becomes clear they cannot meet the deadline.

patent settled · Sep 3, 2025

Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited

Madras High Court · 6011601

Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.

patent interim order · Sep 3, 2025

Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142148538

The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 3, 2025

Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi District Court · 86307928

The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.

patent mixed · Sep 3, 2025

Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 18225176

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 3, 2025

Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd

Bombay High Court · 113251466

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.

patent mixed · Sep 3, 2025

Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 181168799

The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000391

MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED v.Respondent

This case concerns European Patent EP 3 769 722, where Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued several Meril entities for patent infringement, and the Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court of first instance found the patent invalid as granted but upheld it as amended, and found infringement of the amended patent, ordering the Defendants to bear the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of Edwards' costs in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The Defendants sought rectification of the costs order, arguing the Court should have expressly ordered Edwards to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim proceedings. The Court dismissed the rectification requests, holding that the chosen cost allocation was a valid and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and the Rules of Procedure.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000390

Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, seeks interim measures against the respondents, Lepu Medical entities, for alleged patent infringement. The respondents filed an objection on August 11, 2025, and requested that certain confidential information be protected with restricted access to designated persons.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000389

Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.