Patent Cases

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

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

Page 229 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Oct 1, 2024

Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-001230

This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 1, 2024

Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Eoflow Co Ltd Intervention)

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001229

Eoflow Co Ltd applied to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning alleged infringement of EP 4201327 (a patch-insulin pump patent). The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the efficiency of the interim proceedings and the applicant's interest in a speedy decision outweighed Eoflow's interest in intervening, particularly since Eoflow was already a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Milan Central Division.
patent · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
patent · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
patent · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
patent instituted · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
patent · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.
patent null · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
patent pending · Oct 1, 2024

Gurcharan Singh v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 101846946

Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order which dismissed his Review Petition. The initial application for condonation of 150 days delay was allowed by the High Court, and the main appeal was listed for further proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 30, 2024

Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001233

This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 30, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001232

Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Tecan Genomics objected to the evidentiary exhibits submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in the IPR proceeding, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence violations and lack of relevance as prior art.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01502

Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to a Director Review request, defending the institution of its IPR against Tecan’s challenges and arguing that the Board acted properly. The petition emphasizes the legitimacy of expert testimony and rejects the patent owner’s procedural objections.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01502

Tecan Group AG files a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies. The patent owner alleges procedural abuse, unsupported expert testimony, and misinterpretation of claim scope. The request highlights parallel litigation and discretionary denial issues.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company

· IPR2024-01498

Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01491

HydraFacial LLC opposes Eunsung Global Corp.’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under Fintiv factors and that the petitioner’s new arguments are untimely. The Patent Owner urges the Director to deny the request.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01491

Eunsung Global Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial’s hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factors and the need for efficient resolution of multiple lawsuits.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2024-01472

Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2024-01472

The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01504

Tecan Genomics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Integrated DNA Technologies’ IPR, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary‑denial standards, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and created wasteful parallel litigation. The request cites policy under §§ 316(b) and 325(d) and urges denial of the petition.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
patent · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Tecan Group AG files a Director Review request to overturn an institution decision that could invalidate its DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the panel misapplied law, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and ignored PTAB policy on parallel petitions.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01502

The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.
1 •••228229230•••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 →