Patent Cases

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01323

Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01323

Court decision.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01324

Court decision.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.

LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC

· IPR2025-01318

LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.

JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.

· IPR2025-01130

JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01327

Reolink Innovation filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of its ’655 peer‑to‑peer searching system patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on five prior‑art publications. The petition enumerates eight grounds covering §§102 and 103, mapping each claim to the cited references.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01323

Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01324

Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2025-01317

LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.

patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01242

3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01327

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.

patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01242

The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court · 108686314

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 166723667

The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000546

Sanofi SA and Others v.Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, and Dr Reddy's Srl

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000545

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare entities and related defendants

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000544

Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH

The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court denied a request by Respondent PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The court held that the urgency inherent in interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not constitute such circumstances. The court also offered the parties the opportunity to raise objections to Respondent 1 participating in the hearing via video link by July 24, 2025.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000543

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

This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000542

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000541

Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01316

Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01316

Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.