Patent Cases

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

Election Systems & Software petitions to invalidate Hart InterCivic’s 12,125,319 patent, asserting that its claims are abstract, obvious over prior‑art voting‑machine technology, and lack written description for recursive features.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.

Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01319

Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.

patent denied · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01316

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.

patent denied · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01316

The PTAB denied institution for Samsung against Maxell's patent 10812646 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of prevailing standard.

patent instituted · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01308

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01308 involving Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., allowing the dispute over patent 11277650 to proceed to trial.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 45555105

Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142861665

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.

patent settled · Jul 17, 2025

M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali

Madras High Court · 77933534

In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000551

Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Samsung Electronics France S.A.S. (EP 2 839 403)

The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) requested a three-week extension of time periods for filing their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and their reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, seeking a deadline of 11 August 2025. The claimant (Fingon LLC) opposed the request. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for additional time to analyze new technical arguments and obtain information from a third-party developer and their private expert.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000550

NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Ex Parte

The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000549

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.

This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000548

POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Husqvarna AB

POSITEC Germany GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Husqvarna AB before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 3978304 was granted). Husqvarna opposed the application, arguing that POSITEC, as a German company operating the EMEA headquarters, should be able to handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the position of the defendant prevailed in the balancing of interests.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000547

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

FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

patent · Jul 16, 2025

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent · Jul 16, 2025

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01279

ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.

patent instituted · Jul 16, 2025

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000557

BioNTech SE and Others v.Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute

This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000556

MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU SAS

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected MAGUIN SAS's appeal against an order of the Paris Local Division that had refused to revoke an ex parte order for evidence preservation and site inspection. The court upheld the principle that evidence preservation measures under Rules 192.3 and 197 RoP do not require the same urgency, certainty of evidence disappearance, or patent validity assessment as provisional measures, and that applicants need not disclose prior art unless special circumstances warrant it.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000555

Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.

Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Milan) against Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. concerning European Patent EP2519412. During the proceedings, Pirelli and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH entered into a settlement agreement, and Pirelli requested the Court to confirm the settlement, maintain confidentiality over certain financial details, and continue the action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of the unredacted terms, and granted Pirelli a reimbursement of 30% of the total Court Fees.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000554

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

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND in patent infringement proceedings. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann on July 15, 2025, sets a hearing date of July 21, 2025, to be held in person, in English, and entirely in camera due to the confidential nature of the topics to be discussed.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000553

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

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000552

VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division of Paris's order rejecting VALINEA's request for revocation of an ex parte evidence preservation and site inspection order concerning European patent EP 3 178 578. The court held that the urgency assessment for evidence preservation differs from that for provisional measures, that the risk of evidence disappearance is assessed by probability rather than certainty, and that patent validity need not be assessed at the evidence preservation stage. VALINEA's appeal was rejected.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00065

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00065

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 12,115,233. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review, citing the settlement and lack of an institution decision.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00065

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.

patent · Jul 15, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01302

TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.