Patent Cases

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

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

Page 233 of 453

patent instituted · Sep 26, 2024

Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC

· IPR2024-01387

Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.
patent pending · Sep 26, 2024

Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 59270352

The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 26, 2024

KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · 62838050

The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 26, 2024

Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited

Telangana High Court · 38007056

Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 26, 2024

Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 108813329

Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. challenged the status update issued by the Union of India, which deemed its patent application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to non-filing of a request for examination. The petitioner argued that this failure was solely attributable to the negligence of their erstwhile Patent Agent and not due to any fault or lack of intent on their part. Citing previous judgments where courts extended time in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition. Consequently, the court quashed the deemed withdrawal status and directed the Indian Patent Office to restore the application and allow the petitioner a chance to proceed with examination.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2024

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001242

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claims under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure following the final judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, which had invalidated the device claim but maintained the use claim. The court largely allowed the amendments but rejected the addition of a claim for indirect infringement of the process claim, finding that this could have been brought with the original lawsuit.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2024

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001241

This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2024

Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001240

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 25, 2024

Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001239

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· PGR2024-00048

Phison Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘546 NAND‑flash patent, asserting abstract‑idea, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness grounds. The petition relies on extensive expert declaration and prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· PGR2024-00048

Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dusija and Sutardja.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2024

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2024

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· PGR2024-00048

Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC

· IPR2024-01483

Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
patent · Sep 25, 2024

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
patent denied · Sep 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· PGR2024-00048

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
patent denied · Sep 25, 2024

Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC

· IPR2024-01483

Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
patent interim order · Sep 25, 2024

Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 30604557

The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 24, 2024

Unilever France v.I.G.B. S.r.l.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001247

Procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning a request by Unilever France to modify its claims regarding ancillary measures in an infringement action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. relating to European patent EP3997002. The court held that Rule 263 RoP did not apply because Unilever's modifications concerned only the modalities of execution of ancillary measures and did not alter the object or scope of the dispute.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 24, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001246

This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 24, 2024

EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Ex Parte

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-001245

Procedural Order
patent LITIGATION · Sep 24, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001244

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 24, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001243

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 24, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2024-01431

Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 24, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2024-01430

Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent · Sep 24, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2024-01404

Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Harbor Island Dynamic’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision. The brief asserts the Board properly weighed evidence, did not abuse discretion, and that claim construction was unnecessary. The Director is urged to deny the review request.
patent · Sep 24, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2024-01404

Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
patent · Sep 24, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

· IPR2024-01404

Court decision.
1 •••232233234•••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 →