IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 184 of 189 · 5,670 total
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.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
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.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns the admission of withdrawal of the infringement action and revocation counterclaims, as well as the reimbursement of court fees, in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Chamber Hamburg that partially found infringement and partially invalidated the patent, Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw its infringement action, while Tesla sought to withdraw its revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Avago.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of claims in proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Division Hamburg that partially revoked the patent and dismissed the infringement claim, both parties sought to withdraw their respective claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to Avago.
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).
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Ningde Amperex’s U.S. Patent 11,923,498, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary factors oppose institution.
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).
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Celltrion, Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Celltrion seeks IPR institution to invalidate all 50 claims of Regeneron’s US 11,084,865, arguing anticipation by US432 and lack of written description for glycosylation and stability limits.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to invalidate Seikagaku Corporation's patent claims related to endotoxin detection. The Board found grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 112, specifically citing anticipation by a prior publication.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s lithium-ion battery patent (11,923,498). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Krbl Limited v.Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
Sanofi v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.
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.