Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7101–7200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request in IPR2024-00383 to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to have the agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Court decision.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00391 concerning U.S. Patent 8,141,784. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties request termination to conserve resources.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the patent record.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 13 and 14 of Serendia's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by the prior art reference Mehta. The case moves to trial phase after rejecting arguments for discretionary denial based on competitor relationships.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie challenges Columbia Insurance’s post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,920,339 covering fire‑wall hanger systems. The patent owner’s sur‑reply argues the petition’s obviousness and written‑description attacks fail, emphasizing strong secondary‑consideration evidence. The case remains pending before the PTAB.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential while moving to terminate the post‑grant review.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its authority to end settled cases.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review of patent 11,920,339. The Board granted the joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,805,692, asserting that its wearable audio claims are obvious over prior art such as Jannard, Wittenberg, Relan, and Barnes. The petition argues that discretionary exclusions do not apply and requests the Board to institute the review.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Fox, Safford, Arai and related references.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB decided to institute PGR proceedings, finding that the Petitioner successfully overcame arguments of Examiner error regarding prior art combinations and claim construction issues. The dispute centers on fire-resistant wall assemblies and truss hangers, with the Board issuing preliminary determinations on key terms like 'planar extension plate' and 'bounding.'
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR petition against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the argument that substituting CoFeB for Fe would be obvious based on prior art teachings regarding amorphous versus crystalline structures.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR challenge against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, specifically rejecting arguments based on barrier height optimization.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed an earlier decision concerning a patent application related to insect control methods. The court also addressed two interlocutory applications: one granting exemption from filing originals, and another condoning a 13-day delay in filing the main appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application titled 'Auto-Selection of Media Files.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed method for automatically selecting media files based on user preference (confidence level) was non-patentable under Section 3(k). The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that the patent be proceeded for grant as amended.
M/S Avon Automotive And Ors v.M/S Avon Cycles Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's appeal and rectification petition against Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement between the parties, which stipulated that Lumix would not object to Panasonic's trademark application for 'LUMIX'. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar of Trademarks' previous refusal, allowing Panasonic's trademark registration and directing the limitation of goods in Lumix's existing registration.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.
Merck Kgaa v.Bharat Patel
Merck Kgaa successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Bharat Patel in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Merck's trademark 'MERCK' is well-known and granted immediate relief, preventing the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or names. This ruling underscores the strong protection afforded to established, globally recognized trademarks under Indian law.
Sanjay Mehra v.Jagdish Choudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the trademark 'SUPERON', against Jagdish Choudhary. The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting an identical mark for allied goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. This protective order prevents the defendant from using the disputed marks until the final hearing.
M/S Nuchem Limited Earlier Known As Nuchem Plastics Limited v.M/S Archit Nuwood Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Nuchem Limited and Archit Nuwood Industries. The court granted the defendant an extension of time to file a rejoinder, contingent upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- in costs. Furthermore, the court scheduled both the injunction application (I.A. 7713/2023) and the trademark-related application (I.A. 11949/2023 under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) for consideration on July 31, 2024.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,588,110 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under the statutory termination provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all issues. The Board is asked to dismiss the case under statutory provisions for settlement.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Jaffe’s ’828 patent covering image‑authentication methods. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art camera and hashing patents, Exif metadata standards, and a data‑stream authentication patent.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Cargill against Bunge Loders Croklaan regarding vegetable fat composition claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, specifically rejecting arguments based on hindsight bias when converting prior art data.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patents and design rights concerning axial fans. The defendants moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.