Patent Cases

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

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

Page 245 of 424

patent · Jul 12, 2024

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001393

This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
patent dismissed · Jul 12, 2024

M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores

Madras High Court · 18877830

M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
patent pending · Jul 12, 2024

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 152665605

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 12, 2024

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited

Madras High Court · 25711793

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001649

This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001394

This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.
patent · Jul 11, 2024

Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC

· IPR2025-00155

Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
patent denied · Jul 11, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00119

The PTAB denied Micron's second IPR petition against Yangtze Memory's 3D memory patent (10,879,254), citing the overlap of asserted prior art knowledge with a previously instituted review.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against KP Innovations was denied institution by the PTAB, despite arguments of anticipation and obviousness. The Board cited concerns over inefficient use of time and resources to decline institution, though a dissent argued for prevailing likelihood.
patent pending · Jul 11, 2024

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Anr. v.Voiceage Evs Llc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 71803291

The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. IN 322739 under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing smartphones, expressed concern over potential wrongful enforcement of this patent by the respondent. The court accepted notice and granted both respondents six weeks to file their respective replies.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 11, 2024

Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 113283214

Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
patent pending · Jul 11, 2024

ITC Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 98002942

ITC Limited filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 8, 2024. The original order rejected a post-grant opposition filed by ITC against Patent No. 377333 and denied relief for patent revocation.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 11, 2024

Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi

Delhi High Court - Orders · 131269165

The Delhi High Court overturned a trademark refusal order in favor of Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd. The appeal was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, as the appellant claimed they were never properly served with the Show Cause Notice before the Examiner's hearing. Citing established legal precedents, the court held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration after granting due process.
patent remanded · Jul 10, 2024

Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office

Madras High Court · P100496500

Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001598

The Local Chamber Mannheim issued a procedural order referring both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the plaintiff's auxiliary request for patent amendment to the Central Chamber Paris. The referral was granted because nearly all attacks raised in the counterclaim were already being pursued in an earlier central revocation action filed by Defendant 1, making parallel proceedings before two different panels inefficient. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, language change costs, and the advancement of central proceedings.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001400

Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for information contained in its unredacted reply and attachments, as well as for negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim had previously issued an interim order on April 30, 2024, provisionally classifying certain information regarding patent license agreements and related negotiations as confidential. The presiding judge Dr. Tochtermann issued the present order addressing the scope of confidentiality protection in connection with Panasonic's application for production of evidence.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001399

This procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerns the referral of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373 to the Central Chamber Paris. The plaintiff MED-EL filed an infringement action against three Advanced Bionics entities, and defendants 2 and 3 counterclaimed for revocation. Because nearly identical revocation attacks were already pending before the Central Chamber Paris (filed earlier by Defendant 1), the Local Chamber exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) of the UPC Agreement to refer the counterclaim to the Central Chamber for consolidated proceedings.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001398

This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
patent · Jul 10, 2024

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2024-01488

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
patent instituted · Jul 10, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent · Jul 10, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.
patent denied · Jul 10, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).
1 •••244245246•••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 →