IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 132 of 140 · 4,175 total
Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v.Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
NJOY Netherlands B.V v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH , Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 511 174, brought by Fujifilm Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order, issued in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for 11-13 February 2025, sets out preliminary views and questions on key issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law (UPCA versus national law), the value of the dispute, priority and prior use rights, the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and infringement by the SONORA XTRA-3 product.
P.T.S. Machinery B.V. v.Mammoet Holding B.V.
The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_16/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22/01/2025 regarding the preserving of evidence APPLICANT Mammoet Holding B.V. (Applicant) Karel Doormanweg 47 - 3115 JD - Schiedam – NL Represented
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr v.Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr, to amend their original plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that introducing subsequent trade mark registrations, evidence of enhanced goodwill, and relevant judicial records did not change the nature or character of the existing dispute. This decision allows the plaintiffs to strengthen their case by incorporating new statutory rights acquired after the suit's inception.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
An unnamed member of the public, represented by Erik Krahbichler, applied for access to all written pleadings and evidence in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_380/2023) between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril et al. concerning EP 3 769 722. After the parties objected and Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited requested reimbursement of EUR 17,168.70 in legal costs, the Applicant withdrew the applications. The judge-rapporteur closed the proceedings on the access applications and dismissed the requests for reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 69 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering a member of the public to reimburse costs incurred by parties consulted under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
PowerDeal SRL v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for rectification under Rule 353 RoP filed in connection with infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., sought rectification of a prior order concerning the protection of confidential information. The court dismissed the application, finding no obvious slip or clerical mistake, as the unredacted version of the order correctly contained the name of a natural person of Defendant 7 (PowerDeal SRL) to whom access was granted, while only the redacted version had that name replaced with '[…]'.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Chinese authorities under the Hague Service Convention, which failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This is a revocation action filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance, concerning European patent EP 3 626 092, which relates to vaporizer devices (electronic cigarettes). The claimant seeks revocation of the patent with effect across multiple European territories, arguing lack of inventive step. The patent was filed on 14 March 2014 with priority dates of 12 November 2013 and 10 February 2014, and was also subject to pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V. v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/01/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1) XSYS Germany GmbH, Industriestraße 1, 77731 Willstätt - G
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,244,284 covering a display apparatus and video processing method, arguing that claims 18‑20 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references involving dual‑radio devices, Bluetooth, WLAN, and related standards.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
SharkNinja Europe Limited, SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by SharkNinja to suspend the cost assessment proceedings or, alternatively, to extend the time limit for filing a cost assessment application following the Court of Appeal's December 3, 2024 decision reversing an interim injunction against SharkNinja and ordering Dyson to pay costs. The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding when the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 of the Rules of Procedure begins to run and the applicability of Rules 150 and 151 when no main proceedings under Rule 213 are initiated.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent No. EP3977921, and Dexcom filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims and requested the Court to declare the proceedings closed without a cost decision. The Court applied Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and, finding no legitimate interest in adjudication, permitted the withdrawals and closed the proceedings.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 20/01/2025 REQUÉRANT N.J DIFFUSION SARL 44 Rue Paul Valéry 75016 PARIS - FR Représenté par Catherine Mateu INTIMÉ - DEFENDEUR GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsd
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. , Amazon EU S.à r.l. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal concerning an application under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. Amazon, the appellant and defendant in the main infringement proceedings, sought to classify certain information from its appeal and appeal brief as confidential. The disputed information relates to licensing negotiations between the parties, the defendants' business model, and details about licensees and license agreements of the plaintiff Nokia. The underlying case concerns European Patent EP 2 661 892, with the Local Division Munich having previously rejected Amazon's request for disclosure of unredacted documents on December 16, 2024.
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.