Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 90 of 453

patent terminated or settled · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.
patent · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.
patent · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.
patent · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01195

Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.
patent denied · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01195

The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review petitions, including one concerning Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation's patent 7704721.
patent denied · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
patent remanded · Jun 26, 2025

Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 111546444

Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller regarding its patent application for a biological surfactant used as an anti-inflammatory agent and tissue preservative solution. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this omission.
patent dismissed · Jun 26, 2025

Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani v.Deputy Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 109084898

The appellant, Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents on January 20, 2025, seeking to allow her Indian Patent Application Number 201941026810. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel informed the court that she would withdraw this appeal and file a new appeal against an earlier order dated February 2, 2023.
patent remanded · Jun 26, 2025

Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 193328975

Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 26, 2025

Kamterter Products Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents

Calcutta High Court · 98845268

Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 25, 2025

Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000601

Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A., an Italian agricultural equipment manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 604 concerning a reversible tool for agricultural subsoilers, brought an infringement action against the Greek company Spiridonakis Bros GP for allegedly offering, distributing, and advertising a counterfeit product called the 'Bellota tool.' The defendant failed to enter proceedings after being served in absentia, prompting the Central Division Milan to issue a decision by default. The Court granted a permanent injunction, information orders, and cost awards against the defendant.
patent · Jun 25, 2025

American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.

· IPR2025-01176

American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.
patent · Jun 25, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01126

Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jun 25, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00993

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.
patent denied · Jun 25, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01126

The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
patent mixed · Jun 25, 2025

ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark

Calcutta High Court · 186966454

ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01150

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01125

Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent's U.S. Patent 12,089,889 covering a nasal neuromodulation device, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and lack of written description.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01146

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01149

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01145

Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jun 24, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01165

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
patent instituted · Jun 24, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01165

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01150

The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01149

The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
1 •••899091•••453
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 →