Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6201–6300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB denied U.S. Well Services’ request to file new Director Review submissions in IPR2025‑00139, leaving the institution of the proceeding intact. The dispute centers on alleged violations of a Sotera stipulation by the petitioners in parallel district‑court litigation.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services filed a detailed response defending the institution of IPR2025‑00139 against U.S. Well Services’ request for a Director’s discretionary denial. The brief leans heavily on Fintiv precedent and argues that the Board’s factual findings are correct and that the patent’s claims remain vulnerable to three prior‑art combinations.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 722 patent on the ground of obviousness over prior‑art event‑notification systems. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 844 patent on the basis of obviousness. The petition argues that the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,208,878 covering a modular switchgear system for oilfield fracturing equipment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-10 of U.S. Well Services' patent '878, focusing on hydraulic fracturing systems and power distribution. The Board found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a rational basis for combining multiple prior art references to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
MAARS FRANCE, MAARS PROJECTEN B.V., MAARS HOLDING B.V., MAARS PARTITIONING SYSTEMS B.V. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - local division UPC_CFI_455/2024 App_52709/2024 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17 December 2024 regarding R. 158 APPLICANT/S 1) MAARS HOLDING B.V. - Newtonweg 1 - 3846 BJ - Harderwijk, Gelderland - NL Represented by Martin
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Intel Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. v.Daedalus Prime LLC
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) Daedalus Prime LLC (Claimant) - 75 South Riverside, unit B/C, Croton- on-Hudson - 10520 - New York - US Represented by Dr. Marc Gru
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Midas Green Technologies seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR on its immersion‑cooling patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and recent case law.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
DeepSig rebuts Digital Global Systems’ attempt to introduce new claim‑construction arguments in a PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board’s original claim interpretations were correct and that instituting a dependent claim without an unpatentable independent claim is legally untenable.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense have jointly moved to terminate their Inter Partes Review over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and CardiacSense have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The USPTO denied Digital Global Systems' request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against DeepSig. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin has filed an IPR petition challenging Cardiacsense’s ’998 patent covering swimming‑watch technology. The petition alleges lack of written description for a compass and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
The Director denied the institution of an IPR for Midas Green Technologies against Green Revolution Cooling, citing Fintiv factors and concerns over parallel proceedings.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Midas Green Technologies, LLC regarding claims covering appliance immersion cooling systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the burden of proof for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Best-2008 and Osada.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving Center v.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_555/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 18/11/2024 APPLICANT Malikie Innovations Ltd. (Claimant) - The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower Dun Laoghaire - A96 VR66 - Dublin - IE Represe
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) filed an authorized response to Micron’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly upheld YMTC’s eligibility to pursue IPRs and rejected Micron’s Return Mail arguments. The Board is urged to deny Micron’s request for discretionary denial.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against YMTC, arguing the Chinese state‑owned firm is not a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §311 and that the Board should have exercised discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted a Director Review of the institution decision in Micron's IPR against Yangtze Memory, staying the proceedings while the Board reconsidered challenges related to foreign sovereign control and RPI disclosure.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Exelixis’s U.S. Pat. 11,298,349 covering oral cabozantinib (L)-malate formulations. The petition alleges anticipation by the earlier Wilson patent and obviousness over Brown, Kubo and Remington, while arguing that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s 8,686,562 patent covering III‑V semiconductor electrical contacts, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Micron's 3D NAND patent (US 10,872,903). The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over Ahn, Ishikawa, and Fukuzumi prior art and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary exclusions.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge by Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies' patent covering semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for several claims over the prior art reference Usui, while also finding merit in the obviousness arguments.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) successfully petitioned to challenge Micron Technology's patent, leading the Board to institute the IPR. The petitioner argued that prior art disclosed or suggested key elements of flash memory technology. This decision allows YMTC to proceed with challenging claims related to semiconductor device structures.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied IPR petitions filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) against Micron. The denial was based not on patentability, but on YMTC's failure to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest.
UPC Decision UPC-001163 v.Respondent
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed an application for interim measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316, but withdrew the application the following day. After the court confirmed the effectiveness of the withdrawal, Philips sought a 60% refund of the court fees paid. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures before completion of the written procedure, and ordered a refund of €6,600.00.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh
This decision was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court's Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The headnotes address key procedural and substantive issues including the UPC's jurisdiction over pre-1 June 2023 infringing acts, the claimant's choice of competent German local division, bifurcation and referral of counterclaims for revocation under Article 32(3b) UPCA, and the court's discretion regarding stays of infringement proceedings. The decision also addresses injunctive relief under Article 34 UPCA, the consideration of third-party and public interests under Article 64(4) UPCA, and mechanisms such as mandatory licenses and single-use licenses to address public needs.
Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Court decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering Pegasus’s 5G‑related patent. Petitioners sought Director Review, but the patent owner’s authorized response argues the denial was a proper exercise of §314(a) discretion and that the petitioners introduced new, unsupported arguments. The Board’s decision is urged to be upheld.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Ericsson and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00084, leaving the institution of the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent intact.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, relying on seven new §103 grounds that combine Randall, Wollrab, Obradovich, Sheha, Song, Mura‑Smith and McDonnell references. The petition argues the Board should institute the IPR and cancel the claims, noting no discretionary denial applies.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of WSOU’s ’691 MPLS patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on Korean KR996, Japanese JP705, and U.S. Bares references to argue obviousness of claims 31‑49, 70‑79, and 86‑87. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Vermeer’s ’750 patent covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996, and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 November 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (R.223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o.
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
This case concerned an appeal regarding the Appellant's entitlement to reduced court fees in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially claimed micro-enterprise status to pay a reduced fee of €6,600, but later abandoned that claim and asserted small enterprise status without providing supporting evidence. The Court of Appeal found the Appellant failed to demonstrate qualification as a small enterprise and ordered payment of the remaining fee plus a penalty, totaling €9,900. Following the Appellant's non-payment and request for waiver or legal aid, the matter proceeded toward a default decision against the Appellant.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute review of its wellhead patent. The petitioner contends there was no abuse of discretion and that the Board correctly applied statutory standards, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request.