IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 178 of 189 · 5,670 total
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare AB and other Accord entities; STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities; Reddy Pharma SAS and other Reddy entities; Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
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.
Mammoet Holding B.V. v.P.T.S. Machinery B.V.
Mammoet Holding B.V., proprietor of European patent EP 4 171 996 B1 concerning a modular trailer system with jack cradles, filed an ex parte application for preserving evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. Mammoet alleged that PTS, which had been commissioned in November 2020 to build jack cradles based on confidential drawings, was indirectly infringing the patent by producing and supplying a 'Mechanical Construction' matching the claimed invention. The court granted the application, ordering measures including physical seizure of documentation, access to PTS' premises, appointment of a bailiff and expert, and penalty payments for non-compliance.
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 patent owner ASSIA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,991,122 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept 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.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Qualcomm have filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics' 8,549,339 patent covering multi‑core processors with independent voltage and clock domains, seeking cancellation of ten claims on obviousness grounds.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL crosstalk patent, arguing obviousness over Rezvani and Cendrillon I, with an additional reliance on the G.992.3 standard for claim 11.
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.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
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 Hague Service Convention as the Chinese authority 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 under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Unnamed Applicant (Member of the Public) v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited (UPC_CFI_380/2023)
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.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH & Others
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.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
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
A revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 626 092 B1, which relates to vaporizer/electronic cigarette devices. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step based on prior art references 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, finding the claimant's arguments regarding lack of inventive step were not well founded.
XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l. v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3742231 filed a procedural application requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to the requested change and agreed that no translations of previously submitted pleadings were required. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language of proceedings changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
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 dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00519, requesting the settlement be treated as business confidential information.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.
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.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284. They jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial, citing the Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
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.