Patent Cases

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

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

Page 251 of 424

patent denied · Jun 28, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-01079

The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims. This denial was based on procedural rules regarding pre-institution claim disclaimer.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01116

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 28, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01105

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01085

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
patent final · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01084

The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
patent final · Jun 28, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-01077

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
patent interim order · Jun 28, 2024

Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 78071492

Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
patent · Jun 27, 2024

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

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001420

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court, through presiding judge and rapporteur Dr. Tochtermann, provided directions to the parties regarding claim interpretation requirements under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the need for the patent proprietor to anchor revocation counterclaim responses in specific claim features, the strict preclusion regime of Rule 30.2 RoP for later patent amendment requests, and the legal interest requirement for a FRAND license rate determination counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
patent · Jun 27, 2024

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001419

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of the deadline to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The applicant argued that the claimants had introduced new prior art documents not previously part of the proceedings, and that a parallel counterclaim for revocation had been filed before the Hamburg local division, requiring additional time to prepare a proper response. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur considered the principles of proportionality, flexibility, fairness, and equity in exercising discretionary powers to modify procedural deadlines.
patent · Jun 27, 2024

Dolby International AB v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001418

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, addressing time extension and trade secret protection issues. The plaintiff Dolby International AB, supported by intervener Access Advance LLC, sought an extension of its deadline to respond to the defendants' (multiple HP entities) FRAND objection. The defendants had filed a confidentiality application under R. 262A RoP restricting access to certain parts of their submissions, which initially prevented Dolby from consulting with Access Advance pool employees. The court granted a full extension of the response deadline rather than a partial one limited only to the FRAND-related portions.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2024

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.

· IPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their PTAB IPR dispute over a photovoltaic inverter patent and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2024

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.

· IPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2024

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.

· IPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.
patent · Jun 27, 2024

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.

· IPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
patent null · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01090

Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
patent null · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01087

Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition technology.
patent instituted · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01090

Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
patent instituted · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01089

Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
patent instituted · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01087

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01090

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 27, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01089

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 27, 2024

Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · 121549025

Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed an order rejecting the grant of a patent application (No. 2559/CHENP/2012) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to provide proper consideration or independent reasons for concluding the invention was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001424

This order concerns an application by the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to keep certain evidence ('Agreement A & B') submitted in the main infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation confidential from the defendant and the public, on the grounds that they contain business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected to the admissibility of the application, arguing that the plaintiff's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The presiding judge rejected Microsoft's objection, holding that independence must be assessed relative to potential harm to the represented party's interests rather than in an absolute sense.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen N.V. a.o.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001423

This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, against multiple Amgen entities. The parties are competitors in pharmaceutical research, development, manufacture, and supply. The patent in suit is a divisional application ultimately derived from international patent application WO 2007/106585, with the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO having decided on 21 September 2023 that its subject-matter was patentable. The court addressed the degree of certainty required regarding the validity of the patent in suit when deciding on provisional measures, including the likelihood that the EPO opposition division would revoke the patent.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001422

This case concerns an application for preliminary measures filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. before the Local Division Hamburg in relation to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1, which covers the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) patients with a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor. The patent, a divisional application, was granted with unitary effect on 1 May 2024 following a Technical Board of Appeal decision upholding its patentability. The defendant had filed an opposition at the EPO shortly after grant. The court addressed the standard for assessing validity in the context of provisional measures, holding that such decisions must consider not only the court's own view of validity but also the likelihood that the EPO opposition division will revoke the patent.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB, HP International SARL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Deutschland GmbH, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Italy S.r.l., HP Austria GmbH, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Finland Oy, Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP Inc

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001421

This procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerns the admissibility of intervention (Streithilfe) by Access Advance LLC in support of plaintiff Dolby International AB against multiple HP entities in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed whether Access Advance, as the administrator of a patent pool into which the patent in suit was contributed, has the requisite legal interest to intervene. The court held that a direct and present interest exists where the intervener manages FRAND obligations and licensing of the portfolio including the patent in suit, and the defendant challenges the adequacy of the intervener's license offers.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01088

Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
patent · Jun 26, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01088

Apple challenges the obviousness finding of U.S. Patent 10,656,758 covering touch‑gesture menus. The patent owner requests Director Review, arguing the Board relied on hindsight and lacked a proper motivation for combining prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 26, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01032

Samsung successfully challenged Staton Techiya’s echo‑cancelling ear‑piece patent. The PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent denied · Jun 26, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01088

The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
1 •••250251252•••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 →