Patent Cases

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

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

Page 91 of 453

patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01146

The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01145

The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01125

The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
patent mixed · Jun 24, 2025

Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr

Calcutta High Court · 64194527

Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 23, 2025

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000604

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Aesculap AG, as applicant, sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The presiding judge issued indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, including a proposed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 relating to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 23, 2025

Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000603

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 23, 2025

Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000602

Arkyne Technologies appealed a decision of the Hague Local Division that found it had infringed EP 2 137 782 and rejected its counterclaim for revocation. Before the written procedure closed, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to Rule 365 RoP. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees paid by Arkyne, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.
patent instituted · Jun 23, 2025

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01014

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 23, 2025

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 23, 2025

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01098

Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 23, 2025

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 23, 2025

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01098

Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01098

Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Court decision.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Pi‑Design’s French‑press patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art coffee‑maker references.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01098

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jun 23, 2025

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01014

Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 video‑coding patent, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Kim and Adolph.
patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent denied · Jun 23, 2025

Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01014

The USPTO denied institution for several IPR petitions filed by Snap Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy, meaning no trial will proceed.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 23, 2025

New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited

Gujarat High Court · 122825965

The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 20, 2025

AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000612

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 20, 2025

ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000611

This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
1 •••909192•••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 →