Patent Cases

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000538

UPC Decision UPC-000538 v.Respondent

FUJIFILM Corporation sued three Kodak entities for alleged infringement of European patent EP 3 476 616, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors, in Germany and the United Kingdom. The Mannheim Local Division separated the proceedings regarding the UK part of the patent following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The court assessed the validity of the UK part as a mere prerequisite for infringement with inter partes effect, found the patent invalid, and dismissed the infringement action with costs borne by FUJIFILM.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-000537

bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC

This Procedural Order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division Milan, on 18 July 2025, managing two related revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC. The court addressed the management of bioMérieux's extensive invalidity attacks (approximately 50 attacks based on 16 prior art citations) and directed bioMérieux to narrow its arguments, preferably to three inventive step attacks and specific added matter features. The court also set deadlines for submissions and preliminary cost estimates, and outlined the structure of the upcoming oral hearing.

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-000536

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril Lifesciences and related entities concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1 relating to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm the settlement agreement by decision, along with partial reimbursement of court fees.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 18, 2025

LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2025-01317

LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.

patent denied · Jul 18, 2025

Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.

· IPR2025-01325

Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.

LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2025-01317

LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.

patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01242

3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01327

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.

patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025

3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.

· IPR2025-01242

The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

Delhi High Court · 108686314

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.

Gujarat High Court · 24644541

Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.

The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.

Delhi High Court · 158827038

Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 166723667

Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.

patent mixed · Jul 18, 2025

Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 28816072

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000546

Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Dr Reddy's Srl

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference on 17 July 2025, addresses procedural matters including the timeline for the oral hearing, expert testimony on obviousness, and confidentiality issues regarding interim damages calculations. The court confirmed the oral hearing dates of 14–17 October 2025 and the final interim conference for 12 September 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000545

Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi B.V. v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare BV

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 17 July 2025, following an interim conference in consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent n° 2 493 466. The order addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025, expert testimony on obviousness issues related to the Phase III TROPIC study, and confidentiality arrangements regarding interim damages calculations. The claimants are various Sanofi entities, and the defendants comprise four groups: Accord Healthcare entities, STADA entities, Reddy Pharma/betapharm/Dr Reddy's entities, and Zentiva entities.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000544

PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

This order concerns a request by the first respondent, PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for September 1, 2025 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. The Mannheim Local Chamber denied the postponement request, holding that the inherent urgency of interim measure proceedings requires very special circumstances for a postponement, and that vacation absences of legal and patent attorney representatives do not qualify as such. The court further offered the parties an opportunity to raise objections to the first respondent's participation via video link by July 24, 2025.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000543

Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent

This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of 2 April 2025 finding infringement of EP 3 511 174. The defendants (Kodak entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A RoP for information they were required to disclose during enforcement. The court rejected the request, holding that the defendants should have raised confidentiality in the main proceedings, that the main decision already restricted use of the information to the stated purposes, and that no specific risk of misuse was demonstrated.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000542

Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s. v.Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis France

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000541

Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-01316

Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.