Patent Cases

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

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

Page 243 of 453

patent instituted · Sep 12, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00257

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2024

Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., and Flextronics International Europe B.V.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001280

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072. The court addressed whether the originally named fifth defendant, 'Lenovo EMEA DC,' was a party capable of being sued, and whether the plaintiff could correct the designation to Flextronics International Europe B.V. The court held that 'Lenovo EMEA DC' was a non-existent entity, not merely a misnomer, and ordered a party correction by analogous application of Rule 305 RoP, while also requiring re-service of the complaint to the corrected fifth defendant.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2024

Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001279

Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH (PTA), proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex parte application before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court seeking an order to preserve evidence and inspect the premises of Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. PTA alleged that a driver manufactured by the Danieli group and installed at Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, infringed claims of EP977. The Court granted the order, authorizing inspection of the defendants' premises, seizure of relevant documentation, and appointment of an expert, subject to a security deposit of 25,000 Euros.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 11, 2024

Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland Ltd., Flextronics International Europe B.V.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001278

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 110 069. The court addressed whether the claimant's naming of 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as Defendant 5 constituted a mere misnomer or the naming of a non-existent party, and whether the case heading could be corrected to substitute 'Flextronics International Europe B.V.' The court applied Rule 305 RoP by analogy to correct the party designation but held that no effective service had been made, requiring re-service and granting the corrected Defendant 5 the full period to respond.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 10, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH et al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001281

This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants (multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies) sought review of the reporting judge's order that only partially extended their deadline to file a rejoinder (Duplik) to the plaintiff's reply (Replik) on non-technical (FRAND) aspects. The court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the granted extension was adequate and that the full two-month period does not automatically restart from the date access to unredacted confidential information is granted.
patent · Sep 10, 2024

UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC

· PGR2024-00054

UATP IP petitions PTAB to invalidate Slick Slide's low‑friction slide patent, asserting obviousness over Phillips, Fallgatter, and a nylon‑mesh product, plus lack of enablement and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution and a finding that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
patent instituted · Sep 10, 2024

UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC

· PGR2024-00054

UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
patent mixed · Sep 10, 2024

Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.

Madras High Court · 84890512

Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2024

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.

· UPC-001286

Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought a preliminary injunction from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 197 316 B1, which relates to an oral cleaning system with motivation feedback for electric toothbrushes. Despite having previously issued a cease and desist declaration, the respondent was found to be exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrush models at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The court granted the preliminary measures, ordering the respondent to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, imposing penalties of up to 250,000 EUR per violation, and requiring handover of infringing products at the trade fair.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2024

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001285

Koninklijke Philips N.V. sought interim injunctive relief against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1, which covers an oral cleaning system (electric toothbrush) providing motivational feedback to users. After Yunding had previously given a cease and desist declaration acknowledging infringement but was found still exhibiting the infringing 'Oclean' toothbrushes at IFA 2024 in Berlin, the Local Chamber Hamburg granted the interim measures, ordering Yunding to cease offering, selling, importing, and possessing the infringing products across UPC member states, with penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001284

Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior direction appointing a translation expert after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language priority and application documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2024

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., & VitalAire GmbH

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001283

This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 196 231, brought by Roche against Tandem Diabetes Care and VitalAire relating to the t:slim X2 insulin pump. The defendants sought a stay of the infringement proceedings pending parallel revocation actions before the Central Division Paris. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the request for a stay and the claimant's request to hear the infringement and revocation actions together, finding that the claimant's interest in continuing the proceedings outweighed the defendants' interest in a stay.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 9, 2024

Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Stephen George Edrich, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc, Belkin Limited, Marc Gary Cooper, Paul John McKenna

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001282

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, due to a rescheduled decision announcement in a parallel proceeding. The defendants consented, and the presiding judge granted the request, moving the hearing to October 23, 2024.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Headwater Research seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s network‑stack API patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial factors and erred on claim construction. A termination would end the proceeding.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Court decision.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Court decision.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB held that all seven claims of The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over prior‑art jump‑starter and USB‑charging references. The decision follows a petition by Deltran USA LLC asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01397

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 patent on data‑usage monitoring in mobile devices, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 9, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB

· IPR2024-01354

Roku has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dolby’s 1993 audio‑compression patent, arguing that all 17 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny the petition under discretionary statutes.
patent null · Sep 9, 2024

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
patent denied · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01397

The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
patent denied · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01396

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
1 •••242243244•••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 →