Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8001–8100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons, issuing a Writ of Mandamus against The Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought direction to accept an old renewal request (dated 27.03.2013) for their trademark due to alleged inaction by the Registry. The Court found that the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, was not provided to the proprietor. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to accept the renewal request and allow further renewals.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited against Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr. following a successful out-of-court settlement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC'. The court formalized the agreement, which required the defendant to cease the wrongful use and surrender its GST registration obtained under the disputed trade name.
Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S B.R. Industries
The Meghalaya High Court admitted the appeal filed by Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order concerning alleged trademark infringement and costs. The appellant primarily sought reconsideration regarding the quantum of costs imposed. The court allowed the matter to proceed for further hearing, provided the appellant deposits Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within one week.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites successfully obtained institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point editing for real‑estate marketing, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and rejecting discretionary‑denial arguments.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Vermont Safety Developments LLC successfully defended its ski‑binding patent against Head Sport GmbH’s IPR petition. The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient in claim construction, §112(f) analysis, and obviousness particularity, and citing unfavorable discretionary factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,291,052 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination after settlement.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia and Ericsson settled the IPR against Cobblestone Wireless’s 7,924,802 patent and asked the PTAB to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Oura’s wearable smart‑ring patent, arguing obviousness over Sun and Kruse references and indefiniteness of claim 6. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under the FINTIV provision.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging 37 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10649580). The core argument is that the claimed touchscreen interaction and zooming widgets are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on combinations of prior art from Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, Ording, and Hayward. Apple contends that known techniques were predictable solutions available to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,642,413 owned by Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-equipped touch screen systems. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Ahn, Chaudhri-842, and Hinkley. This challenge targets core aspects of modern user interface design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has initiated an IPR petition challenging Oura Health's patent claims related to health monitoring and fitness tracking. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Ahmed, Wisbey, and Shiga.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T-Mobile USA challenges Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, arguing that its claims covering multi-carrier transmission are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that known techniques and combinations of references render the patented technology predictable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Ouraring's patent (11874702) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board determined that the challenges based on prior art met the institutional threshold for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied a Post-Grant Review filed by Samsung against Oura Health's patent '701 because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge 91 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB, citing excessive and unconcise parallel petition filings.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-based touch interfaces. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple's claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley. This decision sets the stage for a full trial on patent validity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims. This denial was based on procedural rules regarding pre-institution claim disclaimer.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited against Ashok Kumar and others. The court found a prima facie case that the respondents were illegally imitating, impersonating, and infringing upon the petitioner's registered trademarks ('Cordelia Cruises') and copyrighted material related to its cruise services. The order specifically restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's marks across all media platforms and directed the blocking of an offending website until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The applicant argued that the claimants had introduced new prior art documents not previously part of the proceedings, and that a parallel counterclaim for revocation had been filed before the Hamburg local division, requiring additional time to prepare a proper response. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur considered the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity in exercising discretionary powers to modify procedural deadlines.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, addressing time extension and trade secret protection issues. The plaintiff Dolby International AB, supported by intervener Access Advance LLC, sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' (multiple HP entities) FRAND objection. The defendants had filed a confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to certain parts of their submissions, which initially prevented Dolby from consulting with Access Advance pool employees. The court granted a full extension of the response deadline rather than a partial one limited only to the FRAND-related portions.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their PTAB IPR dispute over a photovoltaic inverter patent and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed an order rejecting the grant of a patent application (No. 2559/CHENP/2012) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to provide proper consideration or independent reasons for concluding the invention was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge.
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited v.Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court judgment in India Cements Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. (though the parties listed are Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.) resulted in the dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, chose to withdraw the case on June 27, 2024, before a final judgment could be delivered. This action effectively ended the litigation regarding the use of the deceptively similar mark 'NOIDA SUPER KINGS' against the defendant.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order concerns an application by the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to keep certain evidence ('Agreement A & B') submitted in the main infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation confidential from the defendant and the public, on the grounds that they contain business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the plaintiff's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The presiding judge rejected Microsoft's objection, holding that independence must be assessed relative to potential harm to the represented party's interests rather than in an absolute sense.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, against multiple Amgen entities. The parties are competitors in pharmaceutical research, development, manufacture, and supply. The patent in suit is a divisional application ultimately derived from international patent application WO 2007/106585, with the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO having decided on 21 September 2023 that its subject-matter was patentable. The court addressed the degree of certainty required regarding the validity of the patent in suit when deciding on provisional measures, including the likelihood that the EPO opposition division would revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc
This procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerns the admissibility of intervention (Streithilfe) by Access Advance LLC in support of plaintiff Dolby International AB against multiple HP entities in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance, as the administrator of a patent pool into which the patent in suit was contributed, has the requisite legal interest to intervene. The court held that a direct and present interest exists where the intervener manages FRAND obligations and licensing of the portfolio including the patent in suit, and the defendant challenges the adequacy of the intervener's license offers.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple challenges the obviousness finding of U.S. Patent 10,656,758 covering touch‑gesture menus. The patent owner requests Director Review, arguing the Board relied on hindsight and lacked a proper motivation for combining prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung successfully challenged Staton Techiya’s echo‑cancelling ear‑piece patent. The PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,683,643 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. is facing a Director Review request from Smith Interface Technologies in IPR2024-01088. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition and scaling (U.S. Patent No. 10,936,114). Petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Kim, Lang, Burrough, and Bowens. The dispute involves fundamental technology used in modern touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to mobile user interface design and gesture recognition. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining known touch screen interactions with existing prior art techniques leads to predictable results.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has initiated an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 11683643 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting that the claimed audio signal processing methods are merely combinations of existing prior art. This action targets core noise cancellation technology used in wireless communications.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's touch screen patent (10936114). The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds across multiple claims using four prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that numerous claims in Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent were obvious over various prior art combinations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds presented, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on the IPR, finding claims 30 and 62 unpatentable while upholding the patentability of claims 1, 32, 34, and 64. The Board clarified that 'the gesture' must refer to a single input with a common starting point, rejecting the Petitioner’s argument for multiple gestures.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding 59 claims of the '758 patent unpatentable based primarily on obviousness (103) over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine these prior art references to teach numerous claimed features in the touch interface technology.
Spyra Szymon Spyra v.Respondent
The Defendant in main proceedings, Szymon Spyra, a Polish national and natural person whose professional activity relates to mushroom production, requested court-provided simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish for an upcoming oral hearing in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning EP1993350. Amycel LLC, the Applicant in the main action and patent proprietor, opposed the request, arguing that interpretation costs would become costs of the proceedings and that the Defendant could instead engage an interpreter at his own expense. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request under R. 109.1 RoP for court-provided interpretation but granted the request under R. 109.4 RoP, allowing the Defendant to arrange interpretation at his own expense in consultation with the Registry.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to cancel Claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon’s 2022 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The USPTO issued a proposed rulemaking that would amend PTAB practice for discretionary denial, parallel/serial petitions, and settlement handling in inter partes reviews. The changes aim to formalize current practice, improve efficiency, and reduce duplicate challenges in solar‑technology patents such as U.S. 11251315.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate, and Harman jointly moved to terminate their IPRs against Staton Techiya’s patents. The PTAB granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics, Harman International and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over patent 11,659,315 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.