IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 47 of 50 · 1,474 total
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.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
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).
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.
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.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHE 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.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of the IPRs against Headwater Research’s patents, finding the parallel proceeding’s trial date too close to the expected final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 4 of Qomplx’s 2022 cloud‑telemetry patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art references describing virtual appliances and cloud agents. The petition seeks institution of the review.
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.