Patent Cases

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

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

Page 204 of 453

patent null · Dec 1, 2024

lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2024-00460

lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
patent null · Dec 1, 2024

TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.

· IPR2024-00443

TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
patent null · Dec 1, 2024

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00392

Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
patent instituted · Dec 1, 2024

lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2024-00460

lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
patent Final Written Decision · Dec 1, 2024

lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2024-00460

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art (Nishida and Zuckerman) anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed textile manufacturing methods, specifically regarding simultaneous knitting and planar configuration.
patent final · Dec 1, 2024

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00392

The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 29, 2024

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001128

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 29, 2024

NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001127

NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 29, 2024

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001126

FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 29, 2024

Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001125

Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00165

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359 before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Samsung and SiOnyx settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00165

Samsung and patent‑owner SiOnyx settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 before a trial began. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00228

Micron has filed an IPR petition targeting YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘276 patent, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over Kim, Fang, Han, and Chen. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00165

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 79 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Hwang and other references, and urging the Board to deny any discretionary denial.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00229

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, arguing they are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Samsung has filed an IPR petition to cancel 79 claims of SiOnyx’s 10,224,359 image‑sensor patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Iida and other prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00164

Court decision.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00163

Samsung Electronics filed a petition to challenge SiOnyx's U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359.
patent · Nov 29, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00162

Court decision.
patent instituted · Nov 29, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00228

Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2024

Appellant v.Amycel LLC

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001130

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 28, 2024

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France SARL

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001129

Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 28 November 2024 in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The order classifies certain information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and specific exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, and restricts access to a defined group of authorised persons on the Claimant's side.
1 •••203204205•••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 →