Patent Cases

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

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

Page 214 of 453

patent · Nov 14, 2024

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.

· IPR2025-00094

Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2024

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

· PGR2025-00002

The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00118

Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2024

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.

· IPR2025-00094

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies, challenging 16 claims related to merged cascode transistors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 13, 2024

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001166

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) brought a patent infringement action against LAMA France before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that LAMA's compatible ink cartridges infringed European Patents EP 1 737 669 and EP 2 089 230 relating to fluid ejection devices in inkjet printers. LAMA counterclaimed for invalidity of both patents on grounds including insufficient description, extension beyond the application, and lack of patentability. The Court upheld the validity of both patents, found LAMA liable for infringement, and ordered injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure, while rejecting LAMA's preliminary questions to the CJEU and splitting costs equally between the parties.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2024

AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001169

This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2024

Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001168

This is a preliminary order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The order relates to an application by the claimant for an order to produce evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued on 12 November 2024 by Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 12, 2024

AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001167

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether the withdrawal of an opt-out under Article 83(4) UPCA is ineffective when national court proceedings were commenced prior to the transitional period. The Court held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to pre-existing national proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the Court of First Instance's orders and referred the infringement action and provisional measures application back for further adjudication.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00273

Sportradar seeks an IPR against SportsCastr's streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑15 are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition emphasizes examiner oversight and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00275

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness and anticipation over three prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00269

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and requesting the Board to institute the review.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00266

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems disclosed by Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00268

Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Nov 12, 2024

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00265

Sportradar has filed a petition to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑9 are obvious over prior art from Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 12, 2024

Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited

Delhi High Court · 182933814

Astrazeneca filed suit against Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 297581) covering the cancer drug Osimertinib. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendant's offer to contractually manufacture and sell the patented compound constituted infringement. Despite initial defenses by the defendant regarding regulatory approval issues, the court found that due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the statutory period, the suit was decreed in favor of AstraZeneca, granting them relief and substantial costs.
patent mixed · Nov 12, 2024

Idemia Identity & Security France v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks

Madras High Court · 69182521

Idemia Identity & Security France challenged a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, which denied patent protection for its invention related to 'Cryptography on a simplified elliptical curve'. The respondents argued that the invention was merely a mathematical formula or business method, thus falling under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. However, the Madras High Court quashed the rejection order, finding it arbitrary and non-speaking because the respondents failed to address key contentions raised by the appellant regarding its technical contribution.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 12, 2024

Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design

Delhi High Court · 197857960

Comviva Technologies Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse grant for its patent application concerning methods and devices for authenticating electronic payment cards using an electronic token. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims fell under Section 3(k) as being a 'business method' or 'computer programme per se'. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this refusal, holding that the invention addresses a technical problem—enhancing security in contactless payments—rather than merely automating a business process. The court affirmed that the technical contribution makes the subject matter patentable.
patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 12, 2024

Opella Healthcare Group v.Vaibhav Vohra & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 172684029

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, ordering the cancellation of a competing trademark and copyright held by Vaibhav Vohra & Anr. The court found that the respondent's mark 'PHENSERYL' was phonetically and visually deceptively similar to the petitioner’s long-established mark 'PHENSEDYL,' leading to potential consumer confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. Furthermore, the court cancelled the associated copyright registration due to substantial imitation of the petitioner's original artistic packaging.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 11, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
patent · Nov 11, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 11, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Nov 11, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
patent instituted · Nov 10, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00034

Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
patent · Nov 10, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00034

Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent, arguing the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and failed to deny institution despite weak merits.
patent · Nov 10, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
patent · Nov 10, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
patent · Nov 10, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 10, 2024

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.

· IPR2025-00009

Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 10, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
1 •••213214215•••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 →