Patent Cases

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell’s preliminary sur‑reply rebuts Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the patent’s “association information” requirement is not satisfied by Samsung’s prior‑art references. The patent owner emphasizes the need for a storage element that actually stores the association data, which Samsung’s citations lack.

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

· IPR2025-01308

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.

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

· IPR2025-01321

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.

patent denied · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01316

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.

Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.

· PGR2025-00066

The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.

patent instituted · Jul 17, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01308

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01308 involving Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., allowing the dispute over patent 11277650 to proceed to trial.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 45555105

Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142861665

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.

patent settled · Jul 17, 2025

M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali

Madras High Court · 77933534

In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 17, 2025

Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies

Madras High Court · 194981618

The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000551

Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent

This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000550

NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Respondent

The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000549

Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH

Central Division Paris Seat Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 16/07/2025 No. App_25881/2025 UPC_CFI_484/2025 Claimant (Applicant): KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH Schellingstraße 35, 80799 Muni

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000548

POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Respondent

Husqvarna AB filed an infringement action on 16 April 2025 against POSITEC Germany GmbH concerning European patent EP 3978304 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. POSITEC subsequently applied on 23 June 2025 to change the language of the proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, citing the linguistic profile of its parent group's legal and technical staff and the burden of conducting proceedings in German. Husqvarna opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order on 16 July 2025 addressing the language of the proceedings, establishing that fairness requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the defendant's working environment and communication channels.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000547

Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent

FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent instituted · Jul 16, 2025

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01279

ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.

Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.

· IPR2025-01191

The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.

patent mixed · Jul 16, 2025

Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade

Calcutta High Court · 132322240

The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000557

BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech SE, Promosome LLC, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer AB, Pfizer SAS v.Promosome LLC, The Scripps Research Institute

This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000556

MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU, VALINEA ENERGIE

1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’ap

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000555

PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Respondent

Divisione Locale di Milano ORDINANZA del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado Divisione Locale di Milano depositata il 15.7.2025 RICORRENTE PIRELLI TYRE s.p.a. RESISTENTI 1. KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 2. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. Brevetto In

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000554

UPC Decision UPC-000554 v.Respondent

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing) in a patent infringement action brought by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against ASUSTek entities concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The presiding judge ordered an in-person hearing in English on July 21, 2025, to be held entirely in private due to the confidential nature of the FRAND topics to be discussed. The parties were directed to submit a participant list by July 18, 2025.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000553

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000552

VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS

patent terminated or settled · Jul 15, 2025

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00065

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 15, 2025

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00065

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.