Patent Cases

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

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

Page 224 of 453

patent · Oct 16, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01485

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
patent · Oct 16, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01464

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01486

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01485

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01464

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001204

Microsoft sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that refused to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP, based on an alleged lack of independence of Suinno's representative. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that the manifest inadmissibility standard under R. 361 RoP must be reserved for clear-cut cases and that Microsoft failed to demonstrate that discretionary review was necessary, particularly since the independence issue was already the subject of a pending appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2024

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-001203

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against ASUSTek Computer Inc., Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Arvato Netherlands B.V. before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1 through the sale of laptops and notebooks containing Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 and Wi-Fi 6 AX201 modules. The Defendants challenged the competence of the Lisbon Local Division, denied infringement, asserted invalidity of the patent, and argued lack of urgency due to Ericsson's unreasonable delay. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson had delayed unreasonably in seeking provisional measures, thereby failing to establish urgency.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 15, 2024

Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001202

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared an appeal inadmissible for lack of prior authorization from the Court of First Instance. Photon Wave had appealed a procedural order (ORD_41423/2024) issued by the Paris Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 404 726, but the Court of First Instance had merely included a general reference to Rule 220.2 RoP without expressly granting leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that such authorization must be expressly granted and cannot be presumed.
patent · Oct 15, 2024

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC

· IPR2025-00044

Innolux files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 5‑6 of the ‘788 LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues no denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent · Oct 15, 2024

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC

· IPR2025-00043

Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
patent · Oct 15, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2025-00017

Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
patent denied · Oct 15, 2024

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC

· IPR2025-00044

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
patent denied · Oct 15, 2024

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC

· IPR2025-00043

The PTAB denied Innolux Corporation's IPR petition against Phenix Longhorn LLC, citing the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline.
patent denied · Oct 15, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2025-00017

GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2024

Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001208

Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents in infringement proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur found a prima facie case of infringement but held that the request was too broad in certain respects. The court partially granted the request, ordering Orbisk to produce specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights, while protecting confidentiality interests.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2024

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001207

Unified Patent Court decision.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2024

SWAT Medical AB v.Meril Italy S.r.l., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Meril Gmbh, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001206

SWAT Medical AB and its board member/investor applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The respondents opposed the application, seeking rejection or limitations on access and confidentiality conditions. The Court of First Instance granted the applications, allowing access to all pleadings and evidence, but granted leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order pending any appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 14, 2024

Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001205

Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 198 245 B1 concerning a system and method for monitoring food waste, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP requiring Orbisk B.V. to produce documents related to its allegedly infringing Orbi food waste monitoring system. The Local Division The Hague partially granted the request, finding a prima facie case of infringement but limiting the order to specific technical specification documents regarding categorisation of disposal events and detection/correction of erroneous weights.
patent denied · Oct 14, 2024

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00049

The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
patent · Oct 14, 2024

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00049

Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent denied · Oct 14, 2024

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00049

The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court · 5873225

The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court · 177153627

The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court · 160868433

The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court · 14176588

The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 41687320

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of a Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
patent plaintiff favorable · Oct 14, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 105743230

Samsung Electronics filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of its Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
patent · Oct 12, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00006

Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
patent denied · Oct 12, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00006

The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
patent · Oct 12, 2024

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

· PGR2025-00006

Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
1 •••223224225•••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 →