Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5901–6000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns Microsoft Corporation's request for leave to appeal a prior order (ORD_62739/2024) that granted the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of an application under Rule 263 RoP. The Court addressed the legal framework for granting leave to appeal, noting it is an exception to the general principle that interlocutory orders may only be reviewed together with the appeal against the final decision.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, arguing that disclosure would harm their business interests.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 404239, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by an exigency in the attorney's family and that the restoration application was filed within the permissible period. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a granted patent should not be refused solely on procedural lapse if the restoration application is timely.
Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, which refused to grant a patent for 'System for construction of composite U shaped reinforced girders bridge deck' under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants argued that the refusal was arbitrary because the respondent failed to consider their foreign patents and made contradictory findings regarding inventive step.
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
M/s.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works v.M/s.Ganga Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works against the Registrar's decision rejecting its opposition to Ganga Products' trademark application for 'DEVICE OF LORD SHIVA'. The court held that names of Hindu deities are not exclusive and cannot be monopolized, citing established Supreme Court precedents. While dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the appellant to seek cancellation under Section 47 if the mark is eventually registered.
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
Hand Held Products, Inc. filed an application under Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure requesting simultaneous interpretation from German into English for the oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025, in proceedings concerning EP 3 866 051. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request for court-funded interpretation, holding that the mere fact that internal employees of Hand Held Products who do not speak German would attend the hearing did not justify ordering such measures, particularly since Hand Held Products had voluntarily chosen German as the procedural language. The subsidiary request for interpretation arrangements at the applicant's own cost was addressed under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent No. EP 3 490 258 B1 and was decided by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 11, 2024. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, brought the action against fifteen HP entities across Europe, with Access Advance LLC intervening in support of the plaintiff. The decision was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and technically qualified judge Augarde.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics
1. The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some argu- ments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason for the defendant, which had already stated its own claim interpretation in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim, to raise a new ground for revocation at
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning an application for interim measures filed by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities. The dispute concerns European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321, both declared essential to the WiFi-6 standard. The order addresses the court's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) EPGÜ to grant interim measures protecting against threatened foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement injunctions, holding that such injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 EU Charter and the German constitutional right under Art. 2(1), 19(4) GG, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on modified PH20 polypeptides in a PGR proceeding. The Board found likelihood of prevailing based on arguments regarding the genus's scope and potential lack of enablement/obviousness.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted trial on all 20 claims of the '947 patent, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over combinations of Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references for location tracking and targeted advertising purposes.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs lost its IPR challenge against Fullthrottle Technologies regarding location determination and advertising targeting. The PTAB denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the cited prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
Fena Private Ltd v.Balwinder Kumar & Anr.
Fena Private Ltd successfully petitioned for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'NIPPU,' registered by Balwinder Kumar in Class 3 goods. The Delhi High Court found that Fena had established prior rights and extensive goodwill with its mark 'NIP' since 1976. Given the identical nature of the goods (detergents/cleaning preparations) and the deceptive similarity between the marks, the court ruled that the impugned registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon Fena's reputation, leading to its removal from the Register.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu
Financiere Batteur Sas successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel a registered trademark, 'Physiolac AR,' held by Kalai Arasu. The petitioner argued that the mark was adopted in bad faith and had suffered prolonged non-use, violating Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court agreed, finding that the lack of genuine use for over five years demonstrated malafide intent to ride on the petitioner's established international reputation. Consequently, the trademark registration was ordered to be removed from the Register.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed an order from The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on non-speaking orders and failed to properly consider their contentions regarding prior art documents. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed against an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on prior art documents without proper reasoning or consideration of their contentions. The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S A v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Nestle appealed a trademark refusal order from the Trademark Registry to the Delhi High Court. The original rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and similar to existing registered marks. Due to procedural issues following the dissolution of the IPAB, Nestle had to file a fresh appeal in the High Court. The court accepted notice and scheduled further proceedings.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 (relating to the 1000Base-T1 Automotive Ethernet Standard, in force only in Germany), sought provisional measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. The dispute arose after Realtek filed a lawsuit against Avago in the Court of Chancery of Delaware (USA), which was referred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking what Avago characterized as foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement relief. The Local Division Munich ruled on the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief against such foreign measures, holding that foreign anti-suit and enforcement injunctions violate the European right to effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) and the German constitutional guarantee of access to courts.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice concerning its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539). The petitioner argued that they never received the communication regarding the First Examination Report (FER) due to coordination issues between patent agents in Canada and India. The Court found that since the deadline was missed due to non-receipt of the FER, it set aside the abandonment order and revived the application.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR against Headwater Research's patent 10,749,700. The motion relies on statutory confidentiality provisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences filed a joint notice confirming that the IPR oral hearing transcript and final written decision will be made fully public, and that specific exhibits will not remain sealed.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) challenged GoPro's '840 patent in the PTAB, arguing that numerous claims related to video stabilization are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references—including Bell and Shi—teach how to improve motion blur reduction and utilize temporal horizons. This petition challenges 21 specific claims based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Pakage Apparel's '974 patent based on obviousness over prior art combinations (Kitsch/Brocks). The PTAB declined discretionary denial because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to demonstrate material error in prosecution history.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the Petitioner's arguments of obviousness against 21 claims related to video stabilization and motion blur compensation. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'low-light high-pass parameter,' finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific functional element.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The Board found all seven challenged claims unpatentable, rejecting the patent owner's narrow construction of 'passivation layer.' The petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references (Anzai and Yamazaki) taught or rendered obvious the claimed invention in OLED devices.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.SITA SINGH Trading as Nikunj Traders
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, concerning its established trademark GHARI/GHADI. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress in relation to detergent powder, soap, and allied goods.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.Govind Rathore
The plaintiff, M/S RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (GHARI/GHADI) and associated trade dress by the defendants in relation to FMCG goods like soap and detergents. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.