Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6001–6100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution initiated an IPR challenge against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding patents covering battery/electrolyte materials utilizing nanotubes. The core dispute centers on whether the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Bosnyak-392 and Son. Petitioner argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these claimed innovations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging Staton Techiya's patent (11710473) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenger argues that the claimed audio processing and ambient sound control features are merely combinations of prior art teachings from Kirsch, DiCenso, Goldstein, and Woodruff. This challenge targets a broad range of claims related to earpiece functionality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The petitioner asserts that several challenged claims related to MIMO/SIMO mode selection and power optimization in wireless communications are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely on combining established prior art, including Li-Siam, Cui-2003, Wu, and Tiirola, to demonstrate predictable combinations of circuit and radio frequency power usage.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's battery patent (8968924). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Ohata and Kavan. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to a full trial phase at the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Empire Technology Development's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The Board preliminarily adopted a broad definition of 'idle power consumption,' setting the stage for a detailed examination of technical combination possibilities.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Largan Precision Co Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd for infringing its Indian Patent No. 363203, which relates to light blocking sheets in camera systems. The court addressed applications related to interrogatories and the need for confidentiality, ultimately directing the formation of a confidential club.
Draka Comteq B.V v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Draka Comteq B.V challenged the refusal of its patent application for 'Multimode Fiber' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the subject invention. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Department of Atomic Energy v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Department of Atomic Energy challenged an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing to process its patent application No. 201921029932, citing a delay in submitting the power of attorney. The petitioner argued that they had substituted a fresh power of attorney which was accepted by the respondents. The High Court quashed the refusal order, finding it passed without proper consideration and violating natural justice.
Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG against the refusal of its trademark registration for 'REPELLAN'. The court found that the Assistant Registrar's original order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed arguments regarding the difference in goods (textile vs. construction) between 'REPELLAN' and the cited mark 'REPELLIN'. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to publish the trademark for public opposition.
Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain v.Pratapchand (Deceased) & Others
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain seeking to remove the trademark 'SANGHVI' from the register. The core dispute centered on whether the petitioner was a prior user of the mark for Roti Makers, despite having registered it later than the respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence, such as invoices or sales turnover, to substantiate his claim of continuous use since 1996, thereby upholding the validity and protection rights of the respondent's trademark.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for Director Review of IPR2024-00794 was dismissed after Yangtze Memory appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision, leaving the Board without jurisdiction.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision upholding claims 2‑5 and 7‑11 of its 3D NAND patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards, especially regarding the Park and Shibata references. A reversal could invalidate the Board’s findings and affect Micron’s memory‑technology portfolio.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 02/12/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of revocation : Not provided GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. (Defendant)
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, leaving the prior final written decisions in place.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB Director Review email authorizes ADC Solutions Auto LLC to file a 15‑page response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00671. No new evidence may be submitted and the response must be filed within five business days.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that eight claims of the patent were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically regarding jump starting devices with USB charging capabilities. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine existing technologies for convenience and practical benefit.
Divya Novelty v.Commissioner of Customs, Mundra
Divya Novelty appealed against the absolute confiscation and penalties imposed by Customs for importing shoes bearing famous brand names (NIKE, ADIDAS, etc.), which were deemed counterfeit. The Tribunal found that since the required procedure under IPR Enforcement Rules was not followed, the goods could not be held prohibited for confiscation. Furthermore, the valuation method used by the Revenue was deemed illegal.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Rpd Workstations Private Limited
Lenovo successfully challenged the registration of the mark 'THINBOOK' belonging to Rpd Workstations Private Limited in the Madras High Court. Lenovo, asserting its status as the originator and exclusive proprietor of the 'THINK Family of Marks,' demonstrated that the impugned mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to its established brand. The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, directing the cancellation and removal of the infringing trademark from the Register, thereby protecting Lenovo's goodwill and reputation in the market.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns infringement and nullity proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The plaintiffs (Heraeus entities) allege patent infringement by Vibrantz GmbH in Germany, Italy, and France, while the defendant asserts prior use rights and has filed a nullity counterclaim. The order addresses multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and applications to extend both the main claim and counterclaim to cover Romania following its accession to the Unified Patent Court agreement on September 1, 2024.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Court decision.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc. challenged the validity of patent 10280532 in a PTAB petition, alleging obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated material error by the Examiner and instituted the case for trial.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied NJOY's request to challenge JUUL's electronic cigarette patent (RE49114), finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc.'s IPR challenge against DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for obviousness over various prior art combinations in the field of biomedical devices and polymer fibers.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited appealed a demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty levied by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST. The department treated payments made to foreign vendors for manuals, software, and license fees related to aircraft manufacturing/repair as taxable services (Transfer of IP Rights). The Tribunal ruled in favor of HAL, finding that these amounts were merely amortization costs for intangible assets and not consideration for services received.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap for Vehicle'. The court examined the infringement claims, noting ambiguities in the patent claims. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.
Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics v.Kanni Uvaraj and Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark dispute between Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics and Kanni Uvaraj/Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. The parties reached a full and final settlement during the hearing. The appellant accepted the original trial court decree, provided they paid Rs. 1 lakh in damages, and formally undertook not to infringe upon the respondents' registered trademark.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that all 21 claims of its ’749 footwear‑knitting patent are unpatentable. The Owner contends the Board erred by disregarding the petitioner’s expert testimony and by incorrectly finding that the Nishida reference anticipates the claims.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
In IPR2024-00460, the PTAB affirmed that the Nishida reference anticipates lululemon's claims of a footwear knitting method, rejecting Nike's new precision argument. The petitioner's response underscores the Board’s proper reliance on intrinsic disclosure and consistent expert testimony.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
The USPTO denied Lululemon's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00460 concerning Nike's footwear patent 8,266,749. The order contains no substantive analysis of the patent claims.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art (Nishida and Zuckerman) anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed textile manufacturing methods, specifically regarding simultaneous knitting and planar configuration.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands BV v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to cancel 79 claims of SiOnyx’s 10,224,359 image‑sensor patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Iida and other prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.S.A Medline Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr.
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Mr. Arvind Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court. The court found that the defendants' use of identical packaging and trade dress for their product was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SHRIRAM 303'. Given the likelihood of market confusion and irreparable injury to Dcm Shriram Limited, the court granted immediate relief restraining the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or designs.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed an order by the Deputy Controller refusing to grant a patent for a Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on the timing (filing after original patent grant) and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the timing issue was not proven against the appellant and that principles of natural justice were violated.
*** v.Amycel LLC
This appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned a challenge to an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague on 31 July 2024 in a dispute involving EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had paid a reduced court fee of €6,600 (60% of the regular €11,000 fee) claiming micro-enterprise status, but the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to confirm the Appellant qualified as a small enterprise. After the Appellant failed to pay the additional fees ordered within the set time limit, the Respondent requested a decision by default against the Appellant.
Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
This Procedural Order concerns the protection of confidential information in an infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 3 320 604 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the Claimant's request to add Patent Attorney Florian Saadi to its team of authorised persons, finding the wish to keep teams parallel between the main and parallel PI proceedings reasonable, but declined to extend the group further. The Court classified information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and associated exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, restricting access to specifically named representatives, natural reliable persons, and additional attorneys.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed against an order refusing to grant a patent for its Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on timing and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the fact that the application was filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and also violated principles of natural justice.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra
In a dispute stemming from a prior settlement between two brothers, Sharad Mehra filed an application alleging that Sanjay Mehra was violating the terms of their agreement by misusing the trade name 'Superon' and interlinking group companies. The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence suggesting a violation of the Settlement Terms regarding the use of promotional materials at an International Trade Fair. Consequently, the court issued interim directions compelling the Respondent to immediately remove all banners and stop using any promotional material that conjunctively uses their company names.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Micor Labs Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited sought the rectification of Micor Labs Limited's trademark 'DOLOBENE', arguing it was deceptively similar to their mark 'DOLOBAN'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence. The court found that Mankind had lost its right to claim prior user due to the significant lapse between Micor Labs' registration date and the filing of the rectification application.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking revocation of European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers (electronic cigarettes). The patent had previously been opposed before the European Patent Office, where the Opposition Division confirmed its maintenance with amendments, leading to republication on 22 November 2023. The decision addresses procedural issues concerning the front-loaded procedural system, the requirements for specifying grounds of invalidity and prior art in revocation actions, and the limited circumstances under which new facts and evidence may be introduced in subsequent written pleadings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 27/11/2024 Order no. ORD_63173/2024 APPLICANT (defendant in the main proceeding) Himson Engineering Private Limited Represented by Fabrizio Jacobacci
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has requested a PTAB Director Review of IPR2025-00242. The Patent Owner, Oncoustics, is limited to a brief response within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Oncoustics successfully defended the Board’s decision to deny institution of an IPR filed by Precision Cancer Technologies. The patent owner showed the petitioner failed to prove the primary reference disclosed a single static set of raw RF ultrasound data, and the petitioner’s new arguments were untimely.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.