Patent Cases

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

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

Page 255 of 424

patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00984

The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.

patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00959

Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00958

Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.

patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01052

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).

patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00984

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.

patent final · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00959

The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.

patent remanded · Jun 20, 2024

Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 44767216

Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.

patent · Jun 19, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001433

ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.

patent · Jun 19, 2024

Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001434

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.

patent · Jun 18, 2024

Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001437

ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr

patent · Jun 18, 2024

Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001436

patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC

· IPR2024-01033

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC

· IPR2024-01033

Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

patent · Jun 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.

patent · Jun 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

patent null · Jun 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.

patent · Jun 18, 2024

BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.

· IPR2024-00892

BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.

patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01051

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.

patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024

BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.

· IPR2024-00892

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 18, 2024

Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 2706900

The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.

patent · Jun 17, 2024

M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001441

The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.

patent · Jun 17, 2024

AUDI AG v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001440

This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.

patent · Jun 17, 2024

Volkswagen AG v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001438

This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.

patent null · Jun 17, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-00922

Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.

patent denied · Jun 17, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-00922

Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.

patent · Jun 16, 2024

Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001447

This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for information contained in a written submission filed outside the regular deadline regime on May 24, 2024. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) left the decision to the court's discretion but argued that the information may not be confidential since Tesla's sales prices and vehicle production figures are publicly available. The Local Chamber Munich granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information is not publicly accessible.

patent · Jun 16, 2024

Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001446

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.

patent · Jun 16, 2024

Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001445

This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.

patent · Jun 15, 2024

BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.

· PGR2024-00036

Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).

1 •••254 255 256•••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 →