Patent Cases

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

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

Page 207 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Nov 25, 2024

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

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001138

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 25, 2024

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001137

Procedural order issued by the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848, owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited. The order sets out the agenda for the upcoming Interim Conference and Oral Hearing, addressing issues including settlement possibilities, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, Himson's counterclaim for revocation, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim, and ancillary measures. The Interim Conference was postponed from 29 November 2024 to 6 December 2024 due to a general strike in Italy.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.
patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Court decision.
patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00221

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00220

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00189

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘666 patent, asserting that claims 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent · Nov 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of NL Giken’s ’592 patent, arguing obviousness over Walker and Chang references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Nov 25, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00221

Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent instituted · Nov 25, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00220

Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
patent instituted · Nov 25, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00189

Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
patent instituted · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
patent instituted · Nov 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon successfully challenged NL Giken's patent (US 10880592) in the PTAB, leading to institution on claims 1-3 and 5. The petitioner argued that prior art references Walker and Chang rendered the claims obvious in the context of digital broadcasting systems.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 2024

Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises

Delhi High Court · 184978922

Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 22, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH & Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001146

The defendants in a patent infringement case concerning EP 2 568 724 filed a last-minute request to stay the proceedings and cancel the scheduled announcement date of November 22, 2024, or alternatively to postpone it to at least December 6, 2024. The Local Chamber Mannheim rejected both the main and alternative requests, finding that no joint application for stay existed under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and that no circumstances justified a stay under Rule 295(m).
patent LITIGATION · Nov 22, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001145

Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and OROPE Germany for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 568 724 B1, which relates to radio communication devices and methods essential to the 4G standard. The defendants filed a revocation counterclaim and a FRAND counterclaim seeking court-determined license terms. The Local Chamber Mannheim found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and the FRAND counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to bear the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 22, 2024

Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001144

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found European Patent EP 2 137 782, owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and relating to a device and method for converting light energy into electrical energy using living plants in microbial fuel cells, to be valid and infringed by equivalence by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as Bioo). The court applied a four-question test for assessing infringement by equivalence and ordered Bioo to cease infringement, recall infringing products, provide information, publish a corrective notice on its website, pay provisional damages of EUR 35,000, and pay penalties for non-compliance.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 22, 2024

Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001143

Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against A. Menarini Diagnostics, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327 through the sale of the EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump insulin patch pump. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Insulet failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid and infringed, and that the balance of interests did not favor granting the injunction. Insulet was ordered to pay EUR 117,465.00 as interim costs.
1 •••206207208•••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 →