Patent Cases

13,582 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,853 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 198 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Dec 11, 2024

DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu, Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001109

DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc. concerning European Patent EP 3 831 282 B1, which relates to remote monitoring of analyte measurements, particularly glucose levels in diabetes patients. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation, and DexCom submitted auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it invalid as granted and as amended under all auxiliary requests due to added-matter objections under Article 138(1)(c) EPC, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 11, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001108

Unified Patent Court decision.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
patent denied · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 11, 2024

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson and Motorola reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00174 concerning patent 11,184,130. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317 before any merits are decided.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00149

Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 11, 2024

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00148

Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 11, 2024

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00117

Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND word‑line contact patent. The petition asserts obviousness over Kim, Park, and Fang references and argues there are no discretionary grounds to deny institution.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC

· IPR2025-00174

Ericsson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motorola’s 5G DMRS patent (U.S. 11,184,130). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness based on 3GPP standards documents TR 38.912 and two R1 technical reports.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00149

Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 36 claims of Fullthrottle’s ad‑tracking patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00148

Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Fullthrottle’s ’947 patent on obviousness grounds, citing Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The petition argues no secondary considerations and opposes discretionary denial.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.

· IPR2024-01456

Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Dec 11, 2024

Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.

· IPR2024-01457

Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00003

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on modified PH20 polypeptides in a PGR proceeding. The Board found likelihood of prevailing based on arguments regarding the genus's scope and potential lack of enablement/obviousness.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00148

The PTAB instituted trial on all 20 claims of the '947 patent, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over combinations of Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references for location tracking and targeted advertising purposes.
patent denied · Dec 11, 2024

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00149

Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs lost its IPR challenge against Fullthrottle Technologies regarding location determination and advertising targeting. The PTAB denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the cited prior art.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00117

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.

· IPR2024-01457

Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024

Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.

· IPR2024-01456

Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 10, 2024

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, SMIS International OÜ, Sormedica UAB, Interlux UAB, VAB-Logistik UAB

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-001116

This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 10, 2024

NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001115

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction removes the legal basis for a subsequent penalty order imposed for alleged violations of that injunction. The Court held that the setting aside of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the injunction is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty order of €100,000 imposed on NanoString, rejected 10x's applications, ordered 10x to bear the costs, and directed the Registry to refund the amount paid by NanoString.
patent remanded · Dec 10, 2024

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 66906059

TVS Motor Company Limited appealed against an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on prior art documents without proper reasoning or consideration of their contentions. The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
patent remanded · Dec 10, 2024

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 170701334

TVS Motor Company appealed an order from The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on non-speaking orders and failed to properly consider their contentions regarding prior art documents. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 10, 2024

Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 143379132

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
patent LITIGATION · Dec 9, 2024

air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001120

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
1 •••197198199•••453
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →