Patent Cases

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

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

Page 206 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Nov 26, 2024

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001136

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 26, 2024

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001135

This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 26, 2024

C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001134

Procedural order from the Paris local division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2265793. The court addressed NOVAWELL's procedural requests to reject an affidavit from a prior seizure operation, to hear witnesses, and to conduct pleadings in French, all of which were dismissed. The court set the value of the case at EUR 1 million and established the timetable for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 17 December 2024.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review against its hyaluronidase patent, arguing filing‑date errors, improper claim construction, and Fintiv factors favoring denial.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck has filed a petition to invalidate Halozyme’s ’298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply attacks Halozyme’s reliance on functional language and disclaimed dependent claims.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck challenges Halozyme’s request for Director review after the PTAB instituted a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,018,298 covering modified PH20 polypeptides. Merck argues the eligibility and claim‑construction issues are meritless and that the Fintiv factors favor institution.
patent denied · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

The PTAB denied Merck's request for Director review of institution decisions in multiple PGRs, including Halozyme's patent 12,018,298. The denial leaves the Board's institution findings intact.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Abbott Laboratories submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision, arguing the Board already resolved all substantive issues and that new Fintiv arguments are barred.
patent denied · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPR institution decisions, including IPR2025-00115 concerning patent 11,674,517 owned by Miracor Medical and challenged by Abbott Laboratories. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed protein variants.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00190

Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00222

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00217

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00219

Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00113

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00112

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB against Halozyme, Inc.'s '298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board granted institution despite challenges based on Written Description and Enablement, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00222

Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00219

The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00217

The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00190

Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00113

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's VAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over multiple prior art references.
patent instituted · Nov 26, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00112

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 26, 2024

The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · 153037028

The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 26, 2024

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court · 192885741

Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 25, 2024

DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Logistics B.V. and Others

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001140

This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 25, 2024

Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001139

Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
1 •••205206207•••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 →