IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 16 of 19 · 559 total
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging the vehicle gear‑selection control patent owned by Bulletproof Property Management, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six §103 grounds covering all 20 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application for 'Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting' on grounds of abandonment. The core dispute revolved around whether the service of the First Examination Report (FER) via email, rather than registered post, invalidated the time limits under the Patents Act, 1970.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks that dismissed his opposition against the registration of the mark 'JBR'. The dispute centered on whether 'JBR' was likely to cause confusion with Karan Rathore's pre-existing device mark used for motor parts and automotive accessories. The court allowed the appeal, finding that both marks were identical and the goods were similar enough to warrant refusal.
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a cancer detection method using nematode olfaction. The Appellant argued that the invention was merely a detection method (in vitro) and not a diagnosis, despite descriptive language in the specification. However, the High Court upheld the original order, finding that the claimed method functioned as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Act.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4146335. The claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, requested withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure after reaching a settlement with the defendant. The defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and found no need for a cost decision.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations, a French company specializing in anti-theft systems for utility vehicles, brought an infringement action against Mul-T-Lock France concerning its MVP 1000 padlock, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 153 830 (a unitary patent). Mul-T-Lock counterclaimed for nullity. The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of claims 1 and 6 as modified, granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and ordered information disclosure, while rejecting claims relating to the Swiss part of the patent.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Biofrontera Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Biofrontera’s nanoemulsion patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Uhlmann and Palazzolo prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed an IPR petition to invalidate 16 claims of a fantasy‑sports patent owned by WinView IP Holdings, asserting that the invention is already disclosed in earlier patents and publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,076,735, asserting that all six claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Chuang, Lin, and Brask. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Moskowitz Family’s spinal fusion patent, asserting that Palmatier anticipates the invention and that combined references render the remaining claims obvious.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Viacyte Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Viacyte Inc appealed a rejection order from the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding an invention for a bioreactor used to culture primate pluripotent stem cell-derived cell aggregates. The Controller rejected the application, finding it lacked inventive steps and failed disclosure requirements. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Vishal Choudhary v.SNPC Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling subject brick-making machines, which were patented by SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. The appeal primarily raised issues of territorial jurisdiction and the merits of patent infringement. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction in favor of the plaintiff (SNPC).
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
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.