Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 219 of 424

patent denied · Sep 8, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01285

The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
patent instituted · Sep 8, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01284

Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
patent instituted · Sep 8, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01267

Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
patent instituted · Sep 8, 2024

Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC

· IPR2024-01241

Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
patent denied · Sep 8, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01232

The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 8, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01287

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
patent final · Sep 8, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01231

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
patent · Sep 6, 2024

Aarke AB v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001290

This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
patent · Sep 6, 2024

Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001289

1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
patent · Sep 6, 2024

Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001288

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
patent · Sep 6, 2024

Meril Gmbh v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001287

This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
patent · Sep 5, 2024

Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001292

The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
patent · Sep 5, 2024

Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001291

This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
patent · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00859

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00859

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.
patent · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00859

Court decision.
patent null · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00859

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
patent denied · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
patent pending · Sep 5, 2024

Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 18052146

The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
patent pending · Sep 5, 2024

Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 60311866

Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
patent dismissed · Sep 5, 2024

T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 112570246

The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
patent pending · Sep 4, 2024

Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design

Delhi High Court - Orders · P175722824

Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
patent · Sep 4, 2024

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

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001294

1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
patent interim order · Sep 4, 2024

Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 28652493

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
patent pending · Sep 4, 2024

INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED

Delhi High Court - Orders · 150848925

The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
patent pending · Sep 4, 2024

Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 116133574

The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 4, 2024

Sanjay Kumar v.Rattan Lal Garg & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 79942160

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Kumar, who holds the registered trademark 'CHAND' for mustard oil. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'R.L. CHAND' on identical products and packaging, causing potential confusion among consumers. This preliminary order restrains the defendants from continuing to use the infringing mark until the full trial.
patent · Sep 3, 2024

AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001296

This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
patent · Sep 3, 2024

Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001295

This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
1 •••218219220•••424
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 →