IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 165 of 189 · 5,670 total
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a European Patent Attorney who is a party to proceedings can represent himself, and whether a board chairman can represent a company. The Court held that lawyers and European Patent Attorneys are not exempted from the duty to be represented when they themselves are parties, and that a person holding a high-level management position cannot represent the legal person. The Court allowed Respondent 1 and SWAT Medical 14 days to appoint authorized representatives and lodge a Statement of response.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Hamburg Local Division that had denied Daedalus Prime LLC's two US attorneys access to confidential information disclosed by Xiaomi in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 792 100. The Court held that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require the person granted access to be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, and that the US attorneys' technical expertise and familiarity with the patent justified granting them full access. The orders of the judge-rapporteur of 30 July 2024 and 3 September 2024 were amended to extend access to the two US attorneys.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Genzyme’s ’880 AAV detection patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of those references and argues that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Genzyme’s ’313 patent covering AAV detection methods. The petition asserts obviousness over four pre‑grant publications describing LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC techniques for viral proteins.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 8, 9, 13, and 17‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367, which cover a zero‑profile expandable intervertebral spacer. The petition relies on the Palmatier patent as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Court of First Instance's decision declaring inadmissible Suinno's R. 262A RoP application for confidentiality, on the ground that Suinno's representative, who was also its managing director and main shareholder, could not be considered independent under Art. 48(5) UPCA. The Court of Appeal held that no corporate representative or natural person holding extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person may serve as that legal person's representative before the UPC, regardless of whether they are otherwise qualified as a UPC representative.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
This is a decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Munich, concerning the confirmation of a settlement agreement and a confidentiality order. BSN Medical GmbH had sued the defendants for infringement of European patents EP 3 033 058 and EP 3 831 350, but the parties subsequently settled the dispute. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered that the details of the settlement be treated confidentially, and ruled that each party bears its own costs as agreed in the settlement.
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar v.Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
The appellant filed an RTI seeking comprehensive information from ICMR regarding the legal framework, ownership, and formalities associated with protecting a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool developed by undergraduate students. The Commission found that the PIO had disclosed available public domain information, but directed ICMR to provide the Appellant with its detailed Intellectual Property Policy for complete transparency.
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v.Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to submit crucial documentation related to its '6E' trademark registration. The plaintiff sought leave under the CPC to place on record certificates that were only obtained after the initial filing of the suit, arguing they were not in their possession at the time of litigation commencement. Given the defendants had no objection, the court granted the application, allowing the evidence to be formally included in the ongoing trademark dispute.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This is a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff Dolby International AB withdrew its patent infringement action, and defendants ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France withdrew their nullity counterclaims. The court accepted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with partial reimbursement of court fees.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The court ordered Tiroler Rohre GmbH to pay SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH €84,033.76 in costs, after reducing the claimed amount of €91,568.76 based on specific objections raised by the respondent regarding excessive hours billed.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that took place before the UPCA entered into force on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and subsequent opt-in. The court held that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement actions based on pre-entry-into-force acts of use. The defendants' auxiliary request for a stay and referral to the CJEU was also rejected, and appeal was allowed.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTek (UK) Limited, and ASUS France
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against several ASUS entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for invalidity filed by certain ASUS defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its main action and the ASUS defendants to withdraw their counterclaim. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, with a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
SSAB Europe Oy & SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning reimbursement of costs following withdrawal of an application for interim measures. The applicants (SSAB entities) sought reimbursement of €91,568.76, while the respondent (Tiroler Rohre GmbH) argued the costs were excessive. The court partially upheld the applicants' claim, reducing certain time entries and ordering the respondent to pay €84,033.76 by March 15, 2025.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy and Others
Procedural order from the UPC Local Division Helsinki in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3295663. AIM Sport Development AG sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to amend its Statement of Claims and under Rule 305 RoP to add a new defendant, TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited. The Court granted the application, allowing the amendments and the addition of the new defendant, while giving the existing defendants three months from the date of the order to lodge their Statement of Defence.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’889 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based autonomous‑vehicle control.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01574 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This decision allows the case to proceed to merits review.
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited v.Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited against Sammaan Capital Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement because the competing mark 'SAMMAAN' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' marks, and both parties operate in identical financial services sectors (granting loans). Despite initial challenges regarding the authenticity of the plaintiff's registration certificates, the court confirmed their validity through a status report from the Trade Marks Registry, thus upholding the injunction.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia and Hisense have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense USA have settled their IPR against Nokia Technologies' patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding as to Hisense.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid patent, arguing obviousness over Okano and combinations with Withenshaw and Oringer. The petition also asserts that the claims require steps to be performed in order.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Nokia’s video‑coding patent, arguing obviousness over Karczewicz and the MPEG‑1/H.263 combination.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations as confidential and restrict its disclosure in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola Mobility LLC opposed the application, arguing that most of the information originated from its own parent group, Lenovo, and there was no justification for restricting a party's access to its own information. The Local Division Munich rejected the application in its entirety.
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.