Patent Cases

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

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

Page 224 of 424

patent instituted · Aug 28, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01337

The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
patent instituted · Aug 28, 2024

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

· IPR2024-01336

Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
patent final · Aug 28, 2024

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.

· IPR2024-01358

The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 28, 2024

Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan

· IPR2024-01352

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 28, 2024

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

· IPR2024-01336

The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2024

Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · 133818251

The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patents and design rights concerning axial fans. The defendants moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2024

Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · 75445214

The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
patent · Aug 27, 2024

Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001304

The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
patent · Aug 27, 2024

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001303

1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
patent · Aug 27, 2024

Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001302

This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
patent · Aug 27, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.

· PGR2024-00047

Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 27, 2024

EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00845

EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent null · Aug 27, 2024

EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00845

EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
patent denied · Aug 27, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.

· PGR2024-00047

The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
patent remanded · Aug 27, 2024

Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 136797216

The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 111815577

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company

Delhi High Court - Orders · 35936847

YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Punjabi

Delhi High Court - Orders · 42111181

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 253/2024) between Wow Momo Foods Private Limited and Wow Punjabi. The case, which sought permanent injunctions against passing off and unfair trade practices, was settled amicably by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of Wow Momo, based on the settlement terms, wherein Wow Punjabi acknowledged Wow Momo's exclusive ownership of the 'WOW' trademark and agreed to cease all use of similar marks.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · 115767565

The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
patent · Aug 26, 2024

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001307

This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
patent · Aug 26, 2024

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001306

This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, titled 'Monitoring circuit for on-board power supply and power supply control.' The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, alleged that the defendants, Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, infringed the patent through the production and sale of Tesla vehicles manufactured at the Grünheide facility near Berlin. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued its decision on August 26, 2024, addressing procedural matters regarding CMS workflow usage and the scope of partial revocation under the applicable procedural rules.
patent · Aug 26, 2024

Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS

Copenhagen (DK) Local Division · UPC-001305

Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13
patent denied · Aug 26, 2024

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2024-01357

Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 26, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01348

Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
patent · Aug 26, 2024

Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC

· IPR2024-01294

Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 26, 2024

Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC

· IPR2024-01294

Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 26, 2024

Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01235

Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent · Aug 26, 2024

Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01235

Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
patent denied · Aug 26, 2024

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2024-01357

The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
patent denied · Aug 26, 2024

Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01235

The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
1 •••223224225•••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 →