Patent Cases

Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.

· IPR2024-01441

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of InterDigital’s ’556 patent covering in‑loop video filtering, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2024-01379

Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of U.S. Patent 11,562,402, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art advertising systems (Grannan, Chung, Yang, Ramaiyer) and that discretionary denial is not justified.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,365,026, arguing that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art container patents.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over Hinton and Varghese prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.

· IPR2024-01441

Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al. based on combinations of prior art references like Burchia and Metabowerke. The Board specifically found motivation to combine these references based on functional benefits.

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

The Director denied institution of IPR for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. against Klein Tools, citing the Fintiv factors and the parallel ITC investigation.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9586659). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 16-23, 26-28 are obvious over prior art references Evolo and Woolley.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2024-01379

The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'

patent pending · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot successfully petitioned for IPR institution against RavenWhite Security's patent (10594823), challenging claims 1-10 on grounds of obviousness over Hinton and Varghese. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot could prevail, allowing the dispute to proceed.

Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab

Delhi High Court - Orders · 161025180

Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).

patent pending · Sep 17, 2024

Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab

Delhi High Court - Orders · 130386544

Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The defendant submitted that these suits were not maintainable as they raised issues already subject to a suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).

patent pending · Sep 17, 2024

Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab

Delhi High Court - Orders · 77102403

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001274

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

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_210/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, sets out preparations for the oral hearing, including scheduling, hearing structure, participation logistics, language arrangements, and the value in dispute. The value in dispute was set at over 50 million euros, taking into account the defendants' FRAND counterclaim and the plaintiff's related applications.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001273

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

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court on September 16, 2024, in preparation for the oral hearing in case UPC_CFI_219/2023 concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation is pursuing infringement claims against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order sets out the structure of the hearing, covering technical aspects (including validity and infringement) on the first day and FRAND-related issues on the second day, along with logistical arrangements for participation, language, and submissions.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001272

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning a vehicle user of speeding conditions. After the defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and its request for an extension of time was rejected, BMW requested a decision by default. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the default decision, revoked the patent in its entirety for lacking novelty and inventive step over prior art, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001271

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others

ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.

· IPR2024-01451

Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.

patent denied · Sep 16, 2024

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

Western Digital seeks a Director Review to overturn an IPR finding that its MTJ memory patent is obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misapplied the APA, misread prior‑art references, and erred on expectation‑of‑success analysis.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.

ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.

· IPR2024-01445

ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01437

Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB’s final decision on its presentation‑dongle patent, arguing the Board gave insufficient weight to a key license with competitor Crestron and other commercial‑success evidence. The petition contends the Board misapplied precedent on nexus and secondary considerations.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01436, arguing that the documents contain confidential licensing and financial data. The Board must decide whether good cause exists to keep the material sealed.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink's challenge to patent 10762002. Yealink may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.