Patent Cases

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

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

Page 244 of 424

patent instituted · Jul 17, 2024

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01129

Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
patent instituted · Jul 17, 2024

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01128

Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
patent instituted · Jul 17, 2024

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01127

Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
patent instituted · Jul 17, 2024

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01126

Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
patent instituted · Jul 17, 2024

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01122

Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
patent denied · Jul 17, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01055

Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenging Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness assertions against multiple prior art references.
patent final · Jul 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01174

The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all 23 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions were anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references.
patent final · Jul 17, 2024

MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC

· IPR2024-01098

The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all six claims of the '904 patent unpatentable. The Board determined that the claimed features were anticipated or obvious over prior art references (Kick, Ackermann, Kaminski, Hutchinson).
patent · Jul 16, 2024

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001743

This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, sets out key legal principles on claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step. The panel (Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge-Rapporteur András Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Casper Struve) addressed issues including the technical meaning of claim terms, the 'same invention' test for priority, the identification of realistic starting points in the prior art, and the criteria for assessing obviousness and inventive contribution.
patent · Jul 16, 2024

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001722

This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
patent · Jul 16, 2024

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001392

This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 3 666 797 B1 before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., sought revocation of the patent held by the Defendant, Amgen, Inc., with both parties being competitors in the cholesterol-lowering pharmaceutical market. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addressed key legal principles including claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step.
patent · Jul 16, 2024

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001391

This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section). The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses issues of claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and inventive step assessment. The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding how the skilled person interprets patent claims, evaluates priority claims, and assesses obviousness based on realistic starting points in the prior art.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 16, 2024

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00185

National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes review proceedings, resulting in the termination of all petitions without a merits decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent · Jul 16, 2024

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00185

National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
patent instituted · Jul 16, 2024

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00186

National Beef Packing Company challenged the '771 patent on obviousness grounds related to modular compositing and microbial testing protocols. The PTAB institution decision was driven by parallel district court litigation and a compelling merits case presented by the petitioner. This sets up significant future challenges in both administrative and judicial forums.
patent instituted · Jul 16, 2024

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00186

National Beef Packing Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against the '771 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of success over at least one claim. The Board adopted Petitioner's definition for 'validation,' clarifying that it merely requires a sample test negative, rejecting the Patent Owner's broader interpretation regarding commercial release.
patent settled · Jul 16, 2024

Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching

Madras High Court · 139163047

This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
patent null · Jul 15, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01178

Bio-Rad Laboratories has filed an IPR challenging the validity of a patent covering multiplex digital PCR assays owned by California Institute of Technology et al. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are unpatentably obvious, representing only a straightforward extension of existing nucleic acid analysis concepts.
patent null · Jul 15, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01177

Bio-Rad Laboratories filed a Petition challenging the obviousness of nine claims in patent 10068051, which relates to molecular diagnostics/PCR methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed multiplexed detection techniques are straightforward extensions of existing prior art concepts found in references like Saxonov and Silverbrook.
patent · Jul 15, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
patent · Jul 15, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01053

Roku challenges a patent held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the challenged claims related to audience measurement are obvious over prior art. Petitioner Roku relies on combinations of references like Feininger and Ramaswamy/Conklin to demonstrate predictable results in media playback analysis.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01178

The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
patent instituted · Jul 15, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01057

The PTAB denied Roku's request to institute IPR against the '848 patent, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the failure of the Petitioner to prove that key prior art (Seet) was entitled to its provisional filing date due to lack of written description support for non-audio media.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01054

Roku's IPR against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied because the key prior art reference (Seet) lacked written description support for non-audio media, preventing it from qualifying as prior art to the challenged patent.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 15, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
patent No outcome · Jul 15, 2024

Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 72307037

The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
patent remanded · Jul 15, 2024

Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 181081087

Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 15, 2024

Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr

Delhi High Court · 97196410

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2024

Mrs Arti Gupta & Anr. v.Puran Rana & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 105644020

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mrs Arti Gupta against Puran Rana, leading to the cancellation of the trademark 'KONVIO NEER' registered in Class 35. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the mark since 2018, while the respondent obtained registration much later in 2022. Citing provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the High Court ruled that the subsequent registration by the respondent was not made in good faith and constituted a contravention of statutory rights.
1 •••243244245•••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 →