IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 72 of 189 · 5,670 total
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
Astral Ltd v.Grasim Industries Ltd
Astral Ltd successfully reached an amicable settlement with Grasim Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to building materials. The court accepted the joint application, leading to a decree that incorporates all the detailed settlement terms. Under these terms, Grasim recognized Astral's exclusive rights while agreeing to adopt a new label and cease using the impugned mark in specific ways, effectively resolving the dispute.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned a revocation action filed by EOFLOW against Insulet's European patent EP4201327 (relating to a fluid delivery device for insulin pumps), along with Insulet's counterclaim for infringement against EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump. The court addressed issues including the requirements for issuing a decision by default, the interpretation of patent claim language, and the application of cost caps under Article 1(3) of the Administrative Committee's decision. The court ultimately found infringement of claim 1 of EP4201327, issued injunctive relief, ordered information provision, product recall, and damages, with EOFLOW bearing the costs.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH (UPC_CFI_63/2025)
This case concerns an application by ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH to revoke an evidence preservation and inspection order under Rule 198.1 EPGVerfO. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, holding that Nanoval GmbH had timely initiated main proceedings based on the revised deadline start date set by the rapporteur's order of March 18, 2025, which adjusted the deadline start to the date the expert's report was made accessible to Nanoval.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU sought joinder of its parallel infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN, transfer of the defendants' counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division Paris (already seized by VEOLIA PROPRETE's revocation action), and a stay of the infringement proceedings. The panel ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, but rejected the request for a stay of the infringement proceedings at this stage.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP4201327 (relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps). EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent, while Insulet filed a counterclaim for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch insulin pump. The Court issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the revocation action, upheld the patent, found infringement by EOFLOW, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments for non-compliance.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Philips's application for cost assessment (R. 151 RoP) following a May 30, 2025 cost allocation order (65% to Belkin, 35% to Philips). Philips withdrew the application on the same day it was filed, explaining it was filed by mistake at the Court of Appeal instead of the Local Chamber Munich. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered no separate cost decision.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Paris concerning patent EP 3 178 578 (a waste incineration installation patent held by TIRU). TIRU had filed infringement actions against MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the alleged infringing incinerator) and VALINEA ENERGIE (exploiter of the incinerator), while VEOLIA PROPRETE had filed a revocation action before the Central Division Paris. The court ordered the joinder of the two infringement actions, transferred the counterclaims for revocation to the Central Division, and rejected TIRU's request for a stay of the infringement proceedings.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited
This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.
Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an infringement action against Meril entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 2 628 464 B1, which relates to the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis Myval™ THV. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the proceedings were stayed pending the Technical Boards of Appeal decision, which upheld the patent in amended form (EP 464 B2). The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement, which the Court confirmed by decision, ordering partial reimbursement of court fees to both sides and keeping certain terms of the agreement confidential.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
An order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 716 655, addressing a precautionary request by the claimant to harmonize time periods in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, holding that the counterclaim for revocation was only effectively served on the claimant on 10 July 2025, and therefore the time period for filing a defence to the counterclaim for revocation did not commence before that date.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities regarding European Patent EP3852468. Sun Patent Trust filed applications under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to classify certain parts of its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential or highly confidential. The court granted the application in part, classifying specific information as confidential (accessible to Defendants' representatives, legal team, and named employees who signed NDAs) and highly confidential (restricted to the Defendants' representative, his legal team, and three named VIVO employees).
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524 before the Paris Local Division. Concurrently, Sun Patent Trust sought to classify certain information in its Statement of Claim and supporting Exhibits as confidential and highly confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The court issued a procedural order defining the scope of confidentiality protection, restricting access to confidential and highly confidential information to specific named representatives, legal teams, and limited employees of the Vivo defendants.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, VAB-Logistik UAB, SMIS International OÜ, Meril GmbH, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation brought an infringement action against Meril Life Sciences and related entities concerning European Patent 3 769 722, which relates to a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves. The defendants denied infringement and filed counterclaims for revocation, along with conditional applications to amend the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) found the patent valid as amended, held that the defendants infringed claim 1, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, provisional damages of EUR 500,000, and cost awards in favor of Edwards.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a FRAND interim hearing in patent infringement proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 682 587. The court set out a timetable for further pleadings on the FRAND objection, with ASUS permitted to file until August 11, 2025, and Lenovo to respond until September 1, 2025. The order also confirmed upcoming dates for a further interim hearing (September 25, 2025, by video conference) and the main oral hearing (November 19, 2025, in person in Munich).
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Sibio Technology Limited filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which relates to in vivo analyte monitoring devices. Sibio challenged the patent's validity on grounds of added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the alleged grounds for invalidity were either inadmissible as late-filed or not proven, and ordered the patent to be maintained as granted with costs borne by Sibio.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review to overturn the institution of XiFi Networks’ patent, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and noting inconsistent claim‑construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks Director Review to overturn eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate PTAB policy and merit vacating institution.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
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.