Patent Cases

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

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

Page 99 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Jun 3, 2025

SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.

patent denied · Jun 3, 2025

Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2025-00701

Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00608

NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.

patent denied · Jun 3, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00608

The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2025-00701

Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over Parkin, Wang, Soukup, and Bowen. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2025-00698

Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) has filed an IPR petition challenging Feit Electric’s 8,614,539 patent covering white‑light LED devices with TiO diffusing layers, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC

· IPR2025-00608

NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Neural AI’s RE49461 patent covering GPU‑based neural network execution. The petition relies on six obviousness grounds based on Buck, Wilt, nnet, ANN and GPU Gems references. It also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC

· IPR2025-00623

UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.

· IPR2025-00553

Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.

patent · Jun 3, 2025

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.

· IPR2025-00554

Shenzhen Root Technology petitions to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,806,454 covering a wearable breast pump, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.

patent denied · Jun 3, 2025

Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2025-00701

Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s IPR petition against patent number 10367138 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under Section 103 grounds.

patent instituted · Jun 3, 2025

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2025-00698

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Feit Electric Company, Inc., challenging 14 claims of patent 8614539. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed LED device components are unpatentable over prior art combinations.

patent instituted · Jun 3, 2025

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.

· IPR2025-00554

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000657

The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000656

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning the temporal scope of the UPC's competence under Article 32(1) UPCA. The court held that the UPC has competence to hear an infringement action concerning acts that occurred both before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and its subsequent withdrawal, and that this does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000655

This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP in an infringement and revocation action involving two European patents (EP '117 and EP '364). The Milan Local Division granted a partial stay of proceedings solely with respect to EP '117, holding that where all parties jointly request a stay, the Court has no discretion and must order it. The proceedings regarding EP '364 were allowed to continue as scheduled.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000654

This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns a request by the Defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection regarding information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) under a prior decision of 11 March 2025. The court dismissed the request in its entirety, holding that Rule 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties, not to information ordered to be disclosed to the opposing party, and that the existing use restrictions inherent in the information order sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000653

This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiffs (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care entities) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 were ordered to continue, and the settlement details were ordered to be kept confidential.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000652

This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000651

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000650

Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 2, 2025

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000649

The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 2, 2025

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 2, 2025

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00581

Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

patent · Jun 2, 2025

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.

patent · Jun 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.

patent denied · Jun 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

patent denied · Jun 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.

patent denied · Jun 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.

patent · Jun 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.

1 •••98 99 100•••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 →