Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6801–6900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence allowed.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all eleven claims of SK nexilis’s 2019 copper‑foil patent, arguing that the claimed surface‑roughness parameters and protective‑layer features are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s 2014 patent on secure information delivery, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a PCT publication combined with Austin‑Lane. The petition also challenges potential discretionary denials under §325(d) and Fintiv.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis’s 2022 electrolytic copper foil patent, asserting that all eight claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues that no secondary considerations exist to rescue the claims.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis' 11,591,706 copper‑foil patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' IPR challenges against SK nexilis regarding claims covering electrolytic copper foils for secondary batteries. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly rejecting conclusory expert testimony used to bridge prior art gaps.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against SK nexilis Co., Ltd. was denied institution by the PTAB, despite a 'close call' on the merits. The denial hinged primarily on procedural factors related to scheduling and parallel litigation.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones. The Board concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate non-hindsight motivation for combining the references or making the necessary technical modifications, citing lack of support for millisecond time resolution.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction, defining 'current state' to include both online and offline device states, which facilitated the finding of obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art reference Norström disclosed key features, leading to findings of anticipation for most claims. For others, combinations of Yin and Koshimizu were deemed obvious over the patent.
Biotyx Medical (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Biotyx Medical challenged the refusal of its patent application for an absorbable iron-based alloy implantable medical device. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient scientific reasoning and proper methodology in adjudicating the invention's merits. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application back to the Controller for a detailed assessment of the inventive step.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
Stara filed a petition for Director Review seeking to invalidate claims of AGCO’s 11,665,989 patent covering rotating toolbar mechanisms for agricultural implements. The petitioner alleges the Board erred in denying institution, citing multiple prior‑art references that disclose all claim elements. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA has requested Director Review of IPR2024-01459 against AGCO's patent 11,665,989. The patent owner may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of the Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a consistent disclosure model, directing that all seven PLAs held by the plaintiffs and the full Qualcomm agreement held by the defendants must be shown to all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of a Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a reciprocal disclosure model, requiring full access to PLAs for all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
Leayan Global Private Limited v.Comfort X India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Leayan Global Private Limited and Comfort X India & Anr., granting a request for adjournment. While arguments were pending regarding the distinctiveness of competing trademarks like 'COMFORT WALK,' the court allowed the petitioner to present additional documents despite their recent filing. The hearing was re-notified for December 17, 2024, contingent upon Leayan Global depositing costs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL
This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a suit filed by Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their 'MAHARAJA' brand. The core issue was unauthorized sellers latching onto the plaintiffs' product listings on the e-commerce platform, using the plaintiff's trademark in invoices. While the suit was ultimately disposed of without a final judgment on damages, the Court issued critical mandatory directions compelling Flipkart to actively prevent this practice and immediately disable the 'latching-on' feature upon notification from the plaintiffs.
Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited v.Great Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from prior proceedings in which Ballinno B.V. had sought provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning European Patent EP1944067. The Claimant did not comment on the request, while the Defendants did not object provided that sensitive technical data constituting trade secrets was redacted. The Court addressed the application for public access to the court documents, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential information.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed orders of the Munich Local Division dated 23 April 2024 that had denied Volkswagen's applications for security for costs in three related patent infringement proceedings involving European Patents EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, finding that NST had failed to provide sufficiently substantiated information demonstrating it could cover a possible cost order, and that NST's status as an SME did not exempt it from providing security. The Court ordered security in reduced amounts of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, payable within three weeks by deposit or EU bank guarantee.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH, Meril Life Science Private Limited v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 17 September 2024 concerning the generic procedural applications Nos. App_45333/2024 and 51629/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024 APPLICANT
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG RESPONDENT Himson Engineering Private Limited PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. P
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels, in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. The order was issued following an Interim Conference held on 6 September 2024 under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure. The court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, noting willingness on the plaintiff's side and limited willingness on the defendants' side, primarily due to substantial costs already incurred.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The defendant submitted that these suits were not maintainable as they raised issues already subject to a suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).