IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 134 of 189 · 5,670 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others (Pfizer and Others)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant Promosome LLC proposed significantly lower amounts. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly, rejecting the request for a default decision as premature.
Epson Deutschland GmbH (Application for Access to Court File in Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş)
Epson Deutschland GmbH applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division for access to pleadings and evidence filed in the main infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 605 534 between Dolby International AB (claimant) and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş (defendants). Epson, which is being separately sued by Dolby before the Hamburg Local Division for alleged infringement of the same patent regarding projectors using Android TV, sought access to prepare its defence. The court partially granted the application, allowing Epson access to redacted versions of five specific pleadings, with further redactions concerning the interpretation and validity of the patent.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (UPC_CFI_501/2023 and UPC_CFI_676/2024)
Procedural order concerning European Patent No. 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. Following a third party's (Erik Krahbichler) withdrawal of his application for access to the file, the defendant Meril Life Sciences withdrew its applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. The Presiding Judge permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed that Edwards and Krahbichler must not disclose information marked by Meril as confidential.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365. The Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) sought security for costs of EUR 5,000,000 each, while the Claimant (Promosome LLC) proposed a lower amount. The parties reached agreement on a security amount of EUR 1,500,000 to be provided by deposit within three weeks, and the Court ordered accordingly while rejecting the request for a default decision.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Advanced Electric Machines Group Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
This appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning an improved electrical sub-assembly for electric/hybrid vehicles, which aimed to enhance Switched Reluctance Machines (SRMs). The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the invention. The court found significant procedural flaws in the respondent's decision, including failure to issue a proper Second Examination Report and citing foreign documents without translation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.
Fashnear Technologies Private Limited v.John Doe/S And Ors
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction reliefs sought by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited against John Doe and others. The court issued sweeping directives requiring entities like NPCI, telecom service providers, and Meta Platforms to take immediate action—including blocking UPI IDs, suspending phone numbers, and removing infringing social media content—to protect the plaintiff's trademarks ('MEESHO') and copyrights. This order sets a strong precedent for how IP holders can leverage court intervention against digital infringement across multiple platforms.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars S.p.A. (defendant in the main infringement proceedings) challenging the jurisdiction of the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Alpinestars argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction, including over alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including for European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT argues that the IPR on Haemonetics’ blood‑apheresis patent should remain instituted, emphasizing that the disputed “controller” term is undisputed and that prior‑art devices disclose it.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines five grounds based on Lavender and other patents.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
UCB Pharma GMBH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
UCB Pharma appealed an order refusing to proceed with its patent application for a solid dispersion formulation of Rotigotine. The court found that the Controller had caused inordinate delays and violated statutory timelines, compounded by citing new prior art documents at the hearing without proper notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning EP'117 and EP'364, applied for leave to limit its claims under Rule 263.3 RoP after the EPO Board of Appeal issued a negative opinion on EP'117, seeking to discontinue claims related to EP'117 while maintaining those regarding EP'364. The defendants argued the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP, entitling them to cost reimbursement. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP governs the limitation of claims, granted Dainese leave to limit its claims, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.S.L. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning two European patents (EP'364 and EP'117), filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse EPO Board of Appeal opinion, while maintaining claims regarding EP'364. The defendants opposed, arguing the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and sought cost decisions. The Milan Local Division granted leave to limit the claims under Rule 263.3 RoP, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.
Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v.Luxe Moto LLP
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing statutory protections. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the IPR file and limit disclosure to the parties and the Board.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The parties argue that public disclosure would harm their business interests.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute and filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The PTAB is expected to grant termination as no final written decision has been issued.
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.