IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 94 of 189 · 5,670 total
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
Unified Patent Court decision.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc. (Counterclaim for Revocation – Application to Amend)
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 479 680, relating to a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. DISH Technologies and Sling TV (part of a telecommunications/satellite TV group) sued several entities of the Aylo adult entertainment group for alleged literal and equivalent indirect infringement based on the 'Auto' playback quality function in their streaming services. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent expired by lapse of time during the proceedings, and the court addressed issues of equivalence, the removal of dependent claims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech (MES, Inc.) opposes Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied institution of an IPR covering a mercury‑control patent. The response argues the Director’s decision is final, the patent’s litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests for joinder and stay are untimely.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial of its IPR petition challenging MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the patent is invalid on multiple grounds.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,596,517. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab’s IPR against Fractus’s LTE‑Band‑12 antenna patent was instituted, with the Board affirming that Baliarda‑543 anticipates the challenged claims and that the priority analysis is correct.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks Director Review to overturn the institution of an IPR that relied on a novel written‑description analysis of its 4G antenna patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied the law, making the priority claim valid and the prior art inapplicable.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. BirchTech’s response argues the Director’s decision is final, the litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests are untimely. The Board is asked to deny the review.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The USPTO Director denied Geotab’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025‑01026 (and related IPR2025‑01027), leaving the institution of the patents intact.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests for two IPRs have been received and set a five‑day deadline for the patent owner to file a limited response, prohibiting new evidence.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab and Geotab USA have filed an authorized response supporting the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Fractus's patent covering LTE Band 12 antennas. The petition asserts that Baliarda-543 anticipates all claims and that the priority document lacks written description support. The Board is urged to deny the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR that it says misapplied written‑description law and improperly stripped the ‘200 patent’s priority claim. The dispute centers on the meaning of “4G communication standard” and whether the parent application supports the claimed antenna language.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied Geotab's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution decisions in place.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Petitioner Baby Generation seeks to invalidate claims 1‑17 and 19‑22 of Baby Jogger’s ’231 stroller patent, alleging lack of support for the “substantially parallel” limitation and obviousness over three prior‑art combinations.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed a petition to invalidate BirchTech’s 10,343,114 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑30.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of BirchTech’s mercury‑control patent, asserting lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over Dou, Ciais‑Quadband and Nakano references and lack of written description for 4G standards.
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.