IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 126 of 189 · 5,670 total
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of both the revocation action and its counterclaim for revocation, with Glaxo's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered no cost decision, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Pfizer.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding European Patent EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation, with reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and Glaxo consented. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50,000,000.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Others v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 661 892. Amazon had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that rejected its request under Art. 59 EPGÜ and R. 190 RoP for disclosure of unredacted documents from Nokia. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the main infringement action was withdrawn, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Nivagen’s orphan‑drug patent. The petitioner argues the denial improperly treated claim‑construction issues as discretionary and was issued by the wrong official.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Hermes’s ’720 patent covering idle‑screen management on mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Hawkins, Majava and Nielsen.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' luminescent fish tape patent, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness across all 18 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 8,886,536, which covers voice‑based advertising. The petition alleges that 55 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board has yet to rule.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' 11,713,209 patent covering luminescent fish tape systems, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition challenges all 18 claims and seeks cancellation.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's application for a 20% refund of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' request for preliminary measures. The court held that the withdrawal, filed after the oral hearing had already taken place on January 9, 2025, did not qualify for the 20% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, because the oral proceedings had already been concluded with the end of the oral hearing.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a third-party request for access to case files. LIFE365, an Italian company involved in a parallel infringement and revocation proceeding in Italy regarding the same European patents (EP'230 and EP'669), sought access to the file of the UPC proceedings between HP and LAMA France. The court granted partial access, allowing LIFE365 to view only the pleadings related to the validity discussion (in redacted form where necessary), while denying access to documents concerning the infringement discussion, including the technical report.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.
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.