IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 88 of 140 · 4,175 total
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.
Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 8 May 2025 in four consolidated sets of patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for treating castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva generic pharmaceutical companies across various UPC member states. The order addresses preliminary objections, sets further procedural deadlines, and confirms dates for interim conferences and the oral hearing.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis France v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel for use in treating prostate cancer. The claimants, comprising multiple Sanofi entities, brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur ordered that preliminary objections be dealt with in the main proceedings and set out the schedule for the remaining written and oral procedure.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by the Claimant, Polidoro S.p.a., to extend the deadline for filing its reply brief in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 037 175. The Claimant sought a one-week extension because the Statement of Defence was initially served in redacted form, with access to the unredacted version only granted later. The court found the extension justified and extended the deadline until 19 May 2025.
Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. v.Respondent
Yealink applied for rectification of a final order issued by the Local Division Brussels on 21 March 2025 in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, seeking to amend the operative part to explicitly characterize the cost award as an 'interim award' and add a reference to Rule 211(1)(d) RoP. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the grounds for rectification under R. 353 RoP are limited to clerical errors, miscalculations, and obvious omissions, none of which were present. The Court reasoned that the order must be read as a whole, and the existing reference to R. 150(2) RoP already encompasses the concept of an interim award of costs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.
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.