IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 140 · 4,175 total
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency of disclosure, and the framework for analyzing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for establishing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on November 21, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the two German respondents, SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, in preparation for a forthcoming main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on November 25, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had been granted on July 5, 2023, without any opposition, and the applicant had withdrawn its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court on the same day it filed the application.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The decision sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that dependent claims only inform main claim interpretation when they provide more specific descriptions of main claim features, that medical use-format claims inherently require therapeutic effectiveness, and that sufficiency must be assessed from the perspective of the skilled person at the filing or priority date.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2025-11-25) under reference UPC-000220, Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al. v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s multi‑speaker audio patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing Bluetooth speaker technologies. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Rajani Products v.Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.
Trident Limited v.Controller Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for a prophylactic drug composition intended for neurodegenerative diseases. The core dispute centered on whether the claims, which described a chemical composition, could be rejected under Section 3(i) (lack of inventive step/patentability criteria) because they were used for treatment. The High Court found that the Controller failed to address all objections and misinterpreted the scope of the product claim versus its therapeutic application. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the refusal order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs sought exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation. The Court disposed of this application as infructuous and noted that the current suit involves the same Suit Patent as another pending infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). Consequently, both suits were listed together for further proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Aberdare Technologies Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of two patents related to optical fiber production. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of these same patents. Both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.
Lmw Limited v.Marzoli Machines Textile S. R. L & Anr.
Lmw Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent number IN 496349. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file necessary pleadings, setting future dates for listing.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.