IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 135 of 140 · 4,175 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted to the plaintiff. The court considered arguments that the plaintiff had suppressed facts, specifically claiming they only discovered the infringing product on 30th October 2024, when in fact they were aware of the defendant's mark since 2018. Consequently, the court vacated the injunction and referred the matter to mediation.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEl GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the court over a standalone action for the quantification of damages following a national court judgment establishing patent infringement and liability for damages. The appellant, Fives ECL, sought to quantify damages of EUR 6.5 million against REEL GmbH based on a prior judgment of the Landgericht Düsseldorf finding REEL liable for infringing EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal overturned the Local Division Hamburg's decision and held that the court has jurisdiction over such standalone damages quantification actions, including for infringing acts committed before the UPC Agreement entered into force on June 1, 2023, provided the patent was still in force at that time.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a bifurcation request in patent infringement proceedings before the Hamburg Local Division. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP2792100, sought to have the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation referred to the Central Division Paris while the infringement action continued in Hamburg. The Defendants, comprising various Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc., had initially requested a stay of the infringement proceedings pending resolution of the revocation matter. The Claimant argued that separating the proceedings would ensure procedural economy and timely resolution of urgent commercial matters.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order by the President of the Court of First Instance concerning an application by NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under R. 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The main infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG based on European patents EP3743812 and EP2628080, both granted in English. NVIDIA argued that English should be adopted as the language of proceedings because it is the language of the patents, while the Claimants opposed the change. The order sets out the parties' positions and the points at issue for the court's consideration.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
Bhagat Textile Engineers appealed a decision of the Milan Local Division finding it had infringed Oerlikon's EP 2 145 848 patent and filed a separate application under Rule 223 RoP seeking suspensive effect of the appeal. Bhagat argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to parallel revocation proceedings involving a third party (Himson Engineering) and considerable doubts about the patent's validity. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that Bhagat had failed to evidence any exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of a cost determination application filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) following a patent infringement and revocation dispute with Avago Technologies. The Local Chamber Hamburg held that the court of first instance retains jurisdiction over the withdrawal of a cost determination application still pending before it, even when the main proceedings (infringement claim and counterclaims) have been appealed. The reporting judge further held that, as a substantive decision under Rule 156.2 RoP rather than a case management measure under Rules 331 ff RoP, the decision to permit the withdrawal falls within the reporting judge's sole and exclusive competence.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims 1-19 against Brook & Whittle Ltd.'s patent. The Board adopted a specific, technical construction for 'recyclable' based on prosecution history and found sufficient evidence across grounds including anticipation (102), obviousness (103), and indefiniteness (112).
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Seikagaku Corporation's patent (11236318) based on grounds of lack of written description and obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence at this preliminary stage, allowing the challenge to proceed into full litigation.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to overcome anticipation and obviousness grounds related to lithium-ion battery separator materials.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the Court of Appeal's handling of Avago's request to withdraw its infringement action and seek reimbursement of court fees following an adverse first-instance ruling. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed Avago's infringement claim, partially revoked the patent EP 1 612 910, and ordered Avago to bear 85% of costs. Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw the infringement action, with Tesla consenting. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of withdrawal requests in appellate proceedings and the consequences for related auxiliary requests.
Alpinestars S.p.A. v.Respondent
1. The coordination between the appeals proceedings before the EPO and the proceedings be- fore UPC may be achieved in the most efficient way, taking into account the position of all
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Respondent
This decision concerns the admission of withdrawal of an infringement action in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Avago had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910, and Tesla had filed counterclaims for revocation. Following a mixed first-instance ruling by the Local Division Hamburg, Avago appealed and subsequently requested withdrawal of the infringement action, to which Tesla consented. The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal, declared the infringement proceedings terminated, and addressed the consequences for the revocation counterclaims and the reimbursement of court fees.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna addressed an alleged infringement of European Patent 2 643 717 brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH, with Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. intervening. The court established guiding principles on four key issues: the mandatory formal counterclaim for revocation when invalidity is pleaded, the distinction between recall and final removal of infringing products, the discretionary nature of publication orders, and the cost treatment of interveners as analogous to parties.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
The PTAB denied NeoGenomics’s petition to institute an IPR against Natera’s 11,530,454 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods. The Board found the prior art had already been considered and no material error existed. No trial will be held.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology seeks to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR filed by battery maker Zhuhai CosMX, arguing the Board relied on impermissible expert testimony and ignored teaching‑away prior art.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Court decision.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑10 of Seikagaku’s 11,959,109 patent covering recombinant endotoxin assay methods. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation by a 2019 publication.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to invalidate Valtrus’s ’738 patent covering SIP fault‑tolerance methods, asserting obviousness over the Forissier patent. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is improper.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).
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.