Patent Cases

Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust

Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000441

HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.

This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The order addresses several preparatory matters for the oral hearing, including the appointment of a technical judge, the use of visual aids, and the rescheduling of the main hearing. The court set the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the infringement claim and the counterclaim, and rescheduled the oral hearing to 22 August 2025.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000440

RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International

This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application by RiVOLUTiON GmbH for suspension of enforcement (aufschiebende Wirkung) of a preliminary injunction order issued by the Munich Local Division on August 6, 2025, in favor of Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC regarding EP 2 515 768. The Munich Local Division had ordered Rivolution to cease offering, marketing, or using surgical instruments incorporating the features of claim 1 of the patent in Germany, with a coercive penalty for non-compliance, and ordered Rivolution to pay EUR 64,000 in preliminary costs to Cilag. Rivolution appealed the decision, whose reasoning had not yet been issued, and sought suspension of its effectiveness pending the appeal.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000439

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL

Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Guardant Health files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate multiple claims of Foundation Medicine’s ’830 cancer‑sequencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and NGS analysis.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2025

The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2025

Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2025

Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01335

Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.

Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.

· IPR2025-01411

Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01336

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01335

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia

· IPR2025-01422

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01336

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000449

Dolby International AB v.Respondent

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file a further pleading addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants (Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş.) for the first time in their statement of defense. The court granted the application, finding that allowing a further pleading on the FRAND issue was warranted for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, and noted that the defendants would not be prejudiced and no procedural delay would result.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000448

Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED , Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited

Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000447

Barco N.V. v.Respondent

This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000446

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.

This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a security deposit of EUR 56,000 previously provided under Rule 158 RoP to cover the legal costs of the Defendants in proceedings related to European Patent EP1944067. The underlying provisional measures application had been dismissed, and the Claimant had been ordered to pay costs. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and a settlement agreement between the parties, the Court ordered the release of the security deposit for direct transfer to Kinexon's bank account in accordance with the settlement.