Patent Cases

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

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

Page 217 of 453

patent denied · Nov 4, 2024

Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia

· IPR2024-00801

Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
patent instituted · Nov 4, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00795

Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
patent Final Written Decision · Nov 4, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00795

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
patent No outcome · Nov 4, 2024

UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL

Delhi High Court · 13055448

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
patent dismissed · Nov 4, 2024

K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya Ramu v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan

Madras High Court · 138053444

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 1, 2024

Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001178

This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
patent LITIGATION · Nov 1, 2024

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001177

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP4108782 (owned by Harvard College). The defendant Vizgen sought an order under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure requiring the claimants to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts previously disclosed in parallel US proceedings in Delaware. The court granted the production request in part, ordering the production of numerous designated documents and transcripts, while imposing strict 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' confidentiality protections.
patent null · Nov 1, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-00459

Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
patent instituted · Nov 1, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-00459

Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent final · Nov 1, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-00459

The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 31, 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-001181

Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 31, 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-001180

Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 31, 2024

SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001179

SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

GoSecure seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of two parallel IPRs filed by CrowdStrike, arguing procedural abuse, improper claim construction, and lack of exceptional circumstances.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

CrowdStrike filed a response urging the PTAB to deny GoSecure’s second request for Director review, arguing that all discretionary denial arguments were previously waived. The Board had already rejected those arguments, limiting the dispute to claim construction of “association.”
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of CrowdStrike’s IPR against patent 9,954,872, alleging the Board ignored binding precedent and misapplied claim construction. The request highlights inefficiencies, settled expectations, and unfair dealings.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

CrowdStrike defends two PTAB petitions challenging GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing differing constructions of the term “association” and supporting claim constructions with the Capalik prior art. The response rebuts GoSecure’s arguments against the Board’s institution of parallel petitions and the definition of “computer system.”
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

GoSecure has submitted a Director Review request for IPR2025-00068, prompting CrowdStrike to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC

· IPR2025-00127

Sterlite Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AFL Telecommunications' optical‑fiber cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00087

Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,954,872 patent on the basis that its claims are obvious over a series of prior‑art references covering malware activity monitoring and intrusion detection.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00066

Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,598,258, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution under the Fintiv factors and argues that the claims lack patentability. The outcome is pending.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00069

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00067

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 31, 2024

Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC

· IPR2025-00127

Court decision.
1 •••216217218•••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 →