Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6101–6200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Abbott Laboratories' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including IPR2025-00116 covering Miracor Medical's patent 11,754,077 B1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.'s IPR challenge against Oncoustics Inc. was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that prior art processed a 'single static set' of raw RF ultrasound data.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
United Spirits Limited & Anr. v.Globus Spirits Limited
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Globus Spirits Limited seeking leave to cancel trademark registrations held by United Spirits Limited. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' trademarks were not in use. The court accepted notice from the plaintiffs and directed them to file a reply within four weeks, followed by a rejoinder within two weeks, setting the next hearing for February 24, 2025.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to reduce the amount of damages sought in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173 from the originally claimed sum to 2 million euros. Microsoft opposed the amendment, arguing it was a litigation tactic aimed at reducing the security for costs and did not fall within the scope of Rule 263. The Court held that the reduction of damages sought constitutes a limitation of the claim under Rule 263(3), and since it was filed with due explanation and unconditionally, leave to amend must be granted.
Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad International GmbH, Myriad Genetics B.V., Eurobio Scientific, Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.Novawell
This procedural order was issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference held on 22 November 2024 in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. EP2265793 owned by C-Kore Systems Limited against French defendant Novawell. Novawell requested the rejection of exhibit 57 from C-Kore's unredacted statement, the hearing of the court's expert Mr. Sartorius and bailiff Me Labadie as witnesses, and simultaneous interpretation with French-language pleadings at the oral hearing, all of which C-Kore contested. The court addressed the scope of professional secrecy applicable to the affidavit submitted by Mr. Wlodarczyk, the representative present during the saisie (evidence preservation) operations, concluding that the information provided related to how the seizure measures were carried out and therefore fell outside the scope of professional secrecy under both UPC and French national rules.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review against its hyaluronidase patent, arguing filing‑date errors, improper claim construction, and Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a petition to invalidate Halozyme’s ’298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply attacks Halozyme’s reliance on functional language and disclaimed dependent claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s request for Director review after the PTAB instituted a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,018,298 covering modified PH20 polypeptides. Merck argues the eligibility and claim‑construction issues are meritless and that the Fintiv factors favor institution.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision, arguing the Board already resolved all substantive issues and that new Fintiv arguments are barred.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPR institution decisions, including IPR2025-00115 concerning patent 11,674,517 owned by Miracor Medical and challenged by Abbott Laboratories. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed protein variants.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB against Halozyme, Inc.'s '298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board granted institution despite challenges based on Written Description and Enablement, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) DexCom, Inc. 6340 Sequence Drive 92121 - San Diego, CA - US Represented by Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan RESPONDENTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on November 25, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_443/2024 concerning a request for preliminary measures brought by Häfele SE & Co KG against an unnamed defendant. The order set out seven guiding principles addressing procedural independence from ownership disputes, claim interpretation regarding subclaims, the inadmissibility of prosecution files as interpretation material, and the balance-of-interests analysis required for preliminary injunctions. The full operative provisions of the ruling are not visible in the available text excerpt.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division in Milan in a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent No. EP2145848. The defendant Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur outlined the agenda for the upcoming interim conference, addressing settlement prospects, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, the scope of Himson's revocation counterclaim, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim and related evidence, ancillary measures, litigation costs, and the organization of the Oral Hearing.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Court decision.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on November 22, 2024, rejecting the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings and cancellation of the scheduled pronouncement date, as well as their alternative application for postponement of the pronouncement to at least December 6, 2024. The court found that the requirements for a stay under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure were not met, particularly because there was no joint application from both parties, as the plaintiff had expressly opposed the stay. The case concerns European Patent EP 2 568 724.
Arkyne Technologies S.L. v.Plant-e Knowledge B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation filed an application for provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. for alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327, relating to its Omnipod 5 insulin patch pump technology. Insulet asserted that Menarini's distribution of the EOPatch (marketed as GlucoMen Day Pump) infringed its patent rights. The Milan Local Division addressed key procedural questions regarding the admissibility of auxiliary requests to amend the patent in provisional measures proceedings, holding that such amendments are inadmissible under Rule 30.2 RoP and must be raised in main proceedings.
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) ruled that European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants, is valid and infringed by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court found infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringing activities, provide information, publish a recall notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for any further infringement.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
In the proceedings for provisional measures, the Applicant is required to provide cumulatively reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with sufficient degree of certainty that: (i) the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings under Art. 47 UPCA; (ii) the patent is valid; (iii) its rights are being infringed or that such infringement is imminent (Rule 211.2 RoP). The auxiliary request to amend the patent pursuant to Rule 30.2 RoP is not admissible in the proceedings for provisional mea
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought an infringement action against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to a radio communication device and method. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation and a FRAND counterclaim. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on November 22, 2024, following an oral hearing on October 7 and 8, 2024. A redacted version of the decision was subsequently ordered on February 6, 2025, after the parties were given the opportunity to comment on confidential information.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of SiOnyx’s ’682 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR against DKR Consulting's patent, citing administrative efficiency because a district court had already found all the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Collomix GmbH v.Respondent
Collomix GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three defendants concerning water dosing devices marketed under the 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät' brand. After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff requested permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment, including its original packaging, operating instructions, and a matching screwdriver. Defendants 1 and 2 objected, arguing under Rule 171.1 of the Rules of Procedure that the evidence should have been submitted with the initial complaint. The Local Chamber Munich ordered the submission, holding that Rule 172.2 RoP permits the court to order production of evidence at any stage of the proceedings.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance regarding a request for a stay of infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office. The appellants, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, and SMIS International OÜ, sought a stay under Article 33(10) UPCA and Rule 295(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of new legal arguments on appeal and clarified the framework for granting stays pending EPO opposition decisions, holding that the Court has discretionary power to stay proceedings even where the expected EPO decision is not final and may be appealed.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
1 Beschikking van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht uitgesproken op 21 november 2024 INHOUDSINDICATIE 1. Niet elk nieuw argument is wijziging van de zaak waarvoor een partij op grond van R. 263 Pr een verzoek om verlof moet indienen. Van wijziging van de zaak is spr
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Oy, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Diabetes
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intervet International B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Design
Intervet International B.V. challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its novel crystalline forms of the drug 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to adequately consider expert evidence regarding superior stability. The Madras High Court agreed, finding a violation of natural justice in the original order.
Signal Pharmaceuticals v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Signal Pharmaceuticals appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing to grant a patent for its mTOR kinase inhibitors. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on a non-speaking order, failing to properly appreciate evidence and ignore the inventive step and therapeutic efficacy of the compound. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Mohammed Faisal T.P. v.The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.
Psyco Remedies Ltd. v.Micro Labs Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment concerns a petition filed by Psyco Remedies Ltd. seeking rectification of a trademark held by Micro Labs Ltd. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the rectification request, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Both sides agreed to withdraw related litigation and mutually refrained from taking further action against each other concerning the subject trademarks. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.