Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6701–6800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
Ms Jainam Multi Product India Pvt Ltd v.Chen Chih-Chuan & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 414503, titled 'ANTI-THEFT ELECTRONIC SEAL', arguing that its registration was arbitrary and contrary to the Patents Act, 1970. The petition challenges the patent based on various grounds under Section 64(1).
Unique Entrepreneurs And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant is using the deceptively similar trademark 'REALLY' against the plaintiff's registered mark 'RALLI', leading to infringement and passing off. The court granted various leaves sought by the plaintiff, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to proceed.
Shankar Engineering Works And Ors v.Sankar Iron Engineering Works Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants concerning an alleged mark used by the defendants for identical products. The plaintiffs argued that there was urgency and sufficient cause to bypass the pre-mediation process.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in a main infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 800,000 (alternatively EUR 600,000), citing the respondent's alleged insolvency risk and lack of substantial assets. The respondent opposed the application and requested reciprocal security if any security order were granted. The Court analyzed the legal basis under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158(1) RoP, confirming its discretion to order security for costs when the respondent's financial position raises a legitimate concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody challenged Hyperice's patent on percussive massagers based on indefiniteness and obviousness, but the PTAB upheld the claims. The Board found that key terms like 'substantially cylindrical' were supported by functional limitations in the specification.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
This order pertains to an appeal filed by T-Mobile Usa Inc against the Controller of Patents. The matter involves the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was released from part-heard due to roster constraints.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union of India & Anr.
The matter concerns the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general, bulk procurement process and disclose all its relevant patents and patent applications in India.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard multiple connected matters concerning the procurement of rare disease medicines, specifically those used for DMD patients. The petitioner argued that the current patient-to-patient process is extremely cumbersome and inefficient. Consequently, the court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent information.
Master Arnesh Shaw Through His Next Friend And ... v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta to document a bulk procurement process and provide details of all its relevant Indian patents and patent applications.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Master Drashtant Jhala Through His Next Friend and Natural Father Sh. Jaydeep Singh Jhala v.Union of India & Anr.
The petition addresses the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard matters concerning the procurement process for medicines used for DMD patients, noting that the current patient-by-patient system is cumbersome and unrealistic. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent portfolio in India.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petition concerns the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record its general bulk procurement process and provide details of all granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Lakshay Agarwal v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-to-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record the general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD medicines.
Ashok Bhutani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Ashok Bhutani successfully challenged the Trademark Registry in the Delhi High Court regarding the non-renewal of his word mark 'SNOWPEAK'. The petitioner argued that the failure to receive mandatory O-3 notices prevented him from filing timely renewal applications. Recognizing the registry's lapse, the court directed the respondents to issue all pending renewal certificates and subsequently restore and renew the trademarks for a further ten-year period.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the defendants' deadline to respond and file any counterclaim for invalidity expired, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the agreed cost arrangements. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied Decent Espresso International Ltd.'s IPR challenge against DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC's infused beverage brewing assembly patent. The Board rejected the petitioner's claim construction of 'resulting solvent valve,' upholding the single-valve interpretation required by the patent owner.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding combining prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Anr.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. challenged the status update issued by the Union of India, which deemed its patent application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to non-filing of a request for examination. The petitioner argued that this failure was solely attributable to the negligence of their erstwhile Patent Agent and not due to any fault or lack of intent on their part. Citing previous judgments where courts extended time in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition. Consequently, the court quashed the deemed withdrawal status and directed the Indian Patent Office to restore the application and allow the petitioner a chance to proceed with examination.
Jai Prakash Singhal v.Tirupati Structurals Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining Tirupati Structurals Limited (the defendant) from using the trademark 'MM TIRUPATI' due to its deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court clarified that even if a portion of a trademark is subject to a disclaimer, the overall composite mark can still be protected against passing off. This ruling reinforces the principle that established goodwill and consumer confusion are paramount in protecting brand identity.
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a nullity counterclaim filed by Vibrantz GmbH against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, the registered patent holder of European Patent No. 3 215 288, while Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG is the substantive patent owner. Heraeus Precious Metals argued the counterclaim should have been directed against the substantive owner and was therefore manifestly hopeless or inadmissible. The Local Division Munich rejected these applications, holding that under Rule 25.1 in conjunction with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, a nullity counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered patent holder under Rule 8.6.
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding the review of an order for interim measures in a patent dispute between Mammut Sports Group entities (based in Switzerland and Germany) and Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (based in Germany). The appeal raised multiple procedural and substantive issues, including the scope of appellate review in interim measure proceedings, the clarity required for appeal grounds, the treatment of late submissions, the assessment of urgency and waiting periods under Rule 211.4, and the applicability of Rule 263 to applications for interim orders. The Court of Appeal issued headnotes establishing important legal principles on these matters, while the full operative provisions of the order were not fully available in the provided text.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. DDT alleged that Doytec's seed counting machine (C-1012), displayed at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in Zwaagdijk-Oost, Netherlands, infringed claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The Court, sitting through a standing judge for extremely urgent matters, found jurisdiction and competence established and addressed the application for seizure of the machine and related documentation.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘546 NAND‑flash patent, asserting abstract‑idea, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness grounds. The petition relies on extensive expert declaration and prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dusija and Sutardja.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Unilever France v.Respondent
1 Paris local Division UPC_CFI_494/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/09/2024 REQUERANT (DEFENDEUR dans la procédure principale) Unilever France 20 rue des Deux Gares - 92500 - Rueil Malmaison CEDEX - FR Rep
OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal addressed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim concerning applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants sought evidence to support their FRAND defense in patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic concerning three European patents declared as standard-essential for the 4G mobile telecommunications standard. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to request production of evidence, and that the first-instance court has discretion in balancing the defendant's interest in obtaining evidence useful for its FRAND defense against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division – First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order in a Review proceeding of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/09/2024. APPLICANT/S in the REVIEW proceedings 1) EOFLOW Co., Ltd. 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
Asana Biosciences Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant sought condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, while simultaneously issuing notice regarding the main appeal seeking to set aside the impugned patent office order.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
SWAT Medical AB, a medical device company based in Sweden, filed an application seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181, which was the subject of a revocation action between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The applicant claimed a direct interest as a competitor and board member/investor in cardiac implant technology, citing concerns about a third-party product under development potentially covered by the patent's claims. The respondents (the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the application, with the Meril entities jointly requesting rejection and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeking dismissal.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.