Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6501–6600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC opposes Nokia and other carriers' request for Director Review of the Board’s denial to institute an IPR. The owner asserts the petitioners raised new arguments and that the Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia regarding video compression methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims of the '593 patent unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's view on claim construction for "power efficiency," allowing indirect measurements (voltage/current) rather than strictly a ratio, which was key to establishing obviousness.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant sought revocation of the patent, while the Defendant defended its validity. The Court examined its international jurisdiction of its own motion, declined to stay proceedings despite a parallel German revocation action in which the German Federal Patent Court had already revoked the German national part of the patent, and assessed novelty and inventive step under Article 54(1) EPC. The Court also refused permission for a subsequent auxiliary request to amend under Rule 50.2 RoP in conjunction with Rule 30.2 RoP, holding that it could and should have been filed earlier under the front-loaded system.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
An exhibit email shows that Google, the petitioner, does not oppose Multifold International’s request to replace a previously filed Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, asking the Board to accept a corrected filing without additional fees.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless and moved to terminate the IPR over patent 9,496,930. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory termination provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Multifold’s patent, arguing the patent owner’s antedating evidence is insufficient and its declarants lack credibility.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility and Google settled with Multifold International over U.S. Patent 9,146,589, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreements with Multifold International confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties seek to have the covenants not to sue treated as business confidential information and excluded from the public patent file.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. Settlement agreements were kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google filed Director Review requests for two IPRs challenging Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The Board limited the patent owner’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung have filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Cerence’s ‘750 patent. The petition argues the Board acted ultra vires by retroactively applying new guidance and mis‑weighing the Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation. The request seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00039 after reaching a settlement and filing covenants not to sue. The Board noted good cause for termination given the early stage of the proceeding.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential, invoking 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to separate the agreements from the public patent file and limit disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International has submitted a Director Review request in IPR2025-00058 against Google. The petitioner may file a concise, five‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs challenging Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company opposes Google’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The patent owner emphasizes due‑process compliance and the correct application of Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition to invalidate ten claims of Multifold's UI patent, arguing obviousness over Purcell/Nicholas and Gillespie/Yook prior art. The petition also challenges discretionary denial and seeks institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola petition IPR to invalidate Multifold’s 9,158,494 patent covering dual‑screen UI methods, asserting that earlier Seo, Yook and Choi disclosures anticipate or make the claims obvious.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Multifold’s 8,842,080 patent covering multi‑display icon handling on handheld devices. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over Japanese patents Ogawa, Yook, and Choi and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition against Multifold's dual‑screen patent, seeking to invalidate twelve claims as obvious over Yook, Bauer and Lee references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola Mobility successfully had their patentability challenge instituted against Multifold International's '007 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on prior art references Purcell and Nicholas, advancing the dispute to trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Multifold International's patent 9141135 on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB institution decision adopted a broader claim construction for 'displays information selectively across the annunciator window,' allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully secured institution in this IPR against Multifold International regarding dual screen image capture technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, despite the Patent Owner's arguments for narrow claim construction.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 using prior art references Ogawa, Choi, and Yook. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'open application state' and 'display.'
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s denial of institution for IPR2024-01464 covering U.S. Patent 11,393,461. They argue the Board acted ultra vires and misapplied Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation and trial‑date uncertainty. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Arvato Netherlands B.V. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1 through the sale of laptops and notebooks containing Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 and Wi-Fi 6 AX201 modules. The Defendants challenged the competence of the Lisbon Local Division, denied infringement, asserted invalidity of the patent, and argued lack of urgency due to Ericsson's unreasonable delay. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson had delayed unreasonably in seeking provisional measures, thereby failing to establish urgency.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerned an appeal filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against order ORD_41423/2024 of the Paris Local Division, which had been issued in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 404 726. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. raised an objection of inadmissibility, arguing that the appeal had not been expressly authorized by the Court of First Instance as required under Article 73 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and Rule 220.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal held that the mere general reference to Rule 220.2 in the operative part of the contested order did not constitute the express authorization required for an appeal, and that such authorization cannot be presumed.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited approached the Kerala High Court seeking intervention regarding pending trademark applications before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai. The petitioner sought a direction for timely disposal of their applications (Exts.P1 and P2). Recognizing the procedural backlog but acknowledging the need for resolution, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to take earnest efforts to pass orders on the pending matters within a stipulated period of four months.
Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
Harvinder Kumar v.M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction in favor of Harvinder Kumar regarding the infringement of his registered trademark. The dispute centered on M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s continued use of batteries and chargers bearing the plaintiff's mark after their agreement was terminated. The court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, granting directions to the respondent to cease using the marked assets and return them within one week.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of its Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat (decision issued on 2024-10-14) under reference UPC-001207, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH appeared in dispute with Ballinno concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 14 October 2024 concerning the Applications RoP262.1(b) Nos. App_33486/2024, 33487/2024 and 33489/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_255/2023 and counter
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Respondent
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 concerning a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce evidence in infringement proceedings. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and partially granted the request, holding that proper evaluation of non-infringement and invalidity arguments should be conducted by the full panel. However, the request was deemed too broad and was therefore limited in scope.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of a Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v.Union of India
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
CAN Srl Airxcel Europe v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, to extend the deadlines for filing a preliminary objection and a statement of defense/counterclaim in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant argued that service of the statement of claim at a trade fair was ineffective. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected both extension requests, holding that the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure permits extensions only in exceptional cases, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs following the rejection of an application for interim measures. The applicant SES-imagotag SA was ordered to bear the costs of the respondents (four Hanshow group companies) up to a cap of €200,000. The court assessed the claimed costs through a plausibility check, establishing that detailed hour-by-hour breakdowns are not strictly required and that representation by a team of three lawyers and two patent attorneys is appropriate for proceedings against four group-affiliated companies.
Abbott Diabetes Care 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 11/10/2024 APPLICANTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365 8000AJ Zwolle – NL Represented by Christian Dekoninck 2) 3) Abbott Diagnostics GmbH Max-Planck-Ring 2 65205 Wies
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action under Article 37 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff, i-mop GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 760 094 B1, which protects a hand-guided floor processing device with a specific joint configuration allowing the floor part to be rotated at least ±45° around a vertical axis. The defendant, ARCORA International GmbH, is a German-domiciled company against whom the infringement claim was directed. The judgment was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (Rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Dr. Daniel Voß, and legally qualified Judge Mojca Mlakar.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a cost determination request concerning appeal costs. The respondents (Hanshow entities) had filed their cost determination request on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the appeal was rejected on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court held that the retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP was inadmissible, as Rule 320 RoP on restitutio in integrum operates as lex specialis and displaces the general extension rule in this context.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as plaintiff suing two related defendants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, for patent infringement. The court addressed procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and whether security for costs should be ordered. The decision was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on October 10, 2024.