Patent Cases

Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.

· IPR2026-00025

Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,117,639 covering network access control. The petition relies on Richmond, Wood, and Teraslinna as anticipatory and obviousness prior art.

NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2025-01586

NIUM PTE. LTD. has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ’701 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art trading system disclosures.

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01457

Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Champion’s ’145 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art engine manuals and patents.

Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.

· IPR2026-00026

Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.

Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.

· IPR2026-00027

Fortinet has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netskope’s 7,593,936 patent, asserting that all 22 claims are anticipated or obvious over Honig, Oliphant, and Vinberg. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.

patent instituted · Jul 10, 2025

American Airlines et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2025-01510

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 802.11 dual‑mode communication patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01457

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.

patent interim order · Jul 10, 2025

Vijay v.Havells India Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 127668861

This order addresses procedural matters concerning a suit filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Vijay, which involves claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The petitioner (Vijay) is defending this suit, and the court directed that the petition be formally registered as CM (Main) (IPD) to ensure proper handling within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.

patent pending · Jul 10, 2025

Natco Pharma Limited v.Array Biopharma Inc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 66940377

Natco Pharma Limited filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN304285 before the Delhi High Court. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner regarding document submission and extensions, while formally initiating the main revocation proceedings.

patent interim order · Jul 10, 2025

Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited

Delhi High Court · 148335635

Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 10, 2025

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point

Delhi High Court - Orders · 34986174

The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000571

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

This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000570

Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000569

InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others

The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000568

The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.

The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Disney entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent EP3259902 was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000567

Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000566

TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 746 957. The order contains preliminary remarks and questions from the judge-rapporteur in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing claim construction, validity issues, and infringement considerations. The order also confirms the value in dispute at EUR 5,000,000 for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation.

patent mixed · Jul 9, 2025

Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 68412436

Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 8, 2025

Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000572

This order concerns the determination of the value of the case for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs in proceedings before the Milan Local Division. The Claimant, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, valued the infringement case at EUR 2,000,000, while the Defendants disputed the underlying figures. The judge-rapporteur set the value of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation at EUR 2,000,000 each, subject to possible reconsideration by the Panel at the merits stage.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01387

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01386

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,012,252 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01386

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01385

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01385

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

patent denied · Jul 8, 2025

A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

patent denied · Jul 8, 2025

Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.