Patent Cases

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

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

Page 79 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 2, 2025

Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs

Calcutta High Court · 50479366

Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000394

Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000393

This procedural order concerns a deadline extension request in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving European Patent EP 2 133 289. Due to irregularities in the CMS, the filing dates of the defendant's reply and counterclaim for revocation were inconsistent, creating uncertainty about the applicable deadlines. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension to September 9, 2025, which the defendant agreed to, but the court only partially granted the request, extending the deadline to September 5, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000392

This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. as inadmissible under Article 33(4) UPCA. Seoul Viosys argued that Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. acts as a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH, a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Düsseldorf Local Division, and that the revocation action was a concerted strategy to circumvent the UPCA scheme. The Court held that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law and may be relevant for assessing the 'same parties' element, the mere existence of a concerted procedural strategy is insufficient to establish a straw company relationship.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
patent denied · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

· IPR2025-00408

Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
patent · Sep 1, 2025

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00429

Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 1, 2025

Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors

Calcutta High Court · 37980608

Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 1, 2025

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 174122202

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
patent · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01499

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
patent · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01479

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
patent · Aug 31, 2025

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01362

Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.
patent · Aug 31, 2025

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01362

Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
patent denied · Aug 31, 2025

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01362

The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
patent · Aug 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01479

BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Aug 31, 2025

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01362

Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01478

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01478

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01413

BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 29, 2025

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare

Himachal Pradesh High Court · P48429914

The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
patent · Aug 29, 2025

Blankenhorn GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000398

This case concerns a cost allocation dispute (Rule 360 RoP) between Faro Technologies, Inc. and Blankenhorn GmbH (Respondent 2) in proceedings concerning EP 4 001 835. The original proceedings involved an application for interim measures (injunction and sequestration) under Art. 62 EPGÜ against both PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (the manufacturer) and Blankenhorn GmbH (the German distributor), following alleged infringement observed at the 'Control' trade fair in Stuttgart on May 6, 2025. After Faro settled with PMT Technologies and Blankenhorn submitted a cease-and-desist declaration, Blankenhorn sought a ruling on cost allocation for the now-concluded proceedings between the two of them.
patent · Aug 29, 2025

Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000397

This is an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) concerning provisional measures under Rule 211 in a patent infringement dispute. Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC, both part of the Johnson & Johnson group, are the applicants seeking provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH in relation to European Patent EP 3 689 262, which protects a staple cartridge for medical stapling devices. The patent, granted on 8 November 2023 with unitary effect registered on 15 April 2024, is a divisional of EP 2 621 360 B1, against which no opposition was filed.
patent · Aug 29, 2025

CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PRIVATE LIMITED v.MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V., MAARS FRANCE

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000396

This case concerned European Patent EP 1 651 838, titled 'Glazing System,' owned by City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, an Indian company. The patent, which expired on 14 July 2024, related to a self-locking glazing mechanism using aluminium profiles and grooved rubber beading. The proceedings involved both an infringement action by City Glass against several Maars entities and a counterclaim by the Maars parties. The decision, delivered on 29 August 2025, addressed issues relating to the expired patent, a final cost decision, and a security deposit under Rule 3(c) UPCA.
patent · Aug 29, 2025

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000395

This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-01431

The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-01431

Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
1 •••787980•••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 →