Patent Cases

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

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

Page 257 of 453

patent · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01327

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 22 claims of Proxense’s biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and asserting that discretionary denial is improper.
patent · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01326

Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01328

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Proxense’s ’905 biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over prior art Ludtke and Kon and opposing discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Aug 20, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
patent denied · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01327

The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
patent denied · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01326

The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review against Proxense's patent because a related review was already underway.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 20, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2024

Ulink Agritech Private Ltd. v.Sml Limited & Others

Himachal Pradesh High Court · 191953740

The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2024

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001321

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
patent dismissed · Aug 19, 2024

V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran

Madras High Court · 152026168

V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 16, 2024

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-001323

This order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. The defendants (ASUSTek, Arvato, and Digital River) sought an order requiring the applicant (Ericsson) to comply with Rule 13.1(h) of the Rules of Procedure and to produce copies of prior art, pleadings, statements of case, and expert reports from referenced proceedings. The Court dismissed the defendants' request, finding that Ericsson had complied with R. 13.1(h) RoP and that the rule requires only information, not annexes or evidence.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 16, 2024

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-001322

This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 628 464. The proceedings had been stayed pending the written decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (TBA), which subsequently rejected the appeal as inadmissible and remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division with an order to maintain the patent in amended form. The court set a timetable for the resumption of proceedings, requiring the claimant to file an amended statement of claim within 14 days and the defendants to file an amended defence and counterclaim for revocation within 42 days.
patent · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01317

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

Google (challenger) failed to prove obviousness of Touchstream's 2013 smart‑TV control patent. The PTAB affirmed all challenged claims, leaving the patent fully intact.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
patent · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01317

Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01317

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01317

Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
patent null · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
patent · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 15, 2024

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001324

This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought production of five categories of documents under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which had been disclosed in parallel US proceedings but were restricted under a US Protective Order. The court granted only the request for production of the license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, Inc. dated September 9, 2019, and rejected the remaining four requests as either lacking specificity or relating to competition law matters outside the court's jurisdiction.
patent · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01313

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera patents against a Director Review request. The company argues that the PTAB must honor prior USPTO guidance and a Sotera stipulation, rejecting any discretionary denial.
patent · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01313

The PTAB notified the parties that the patent owner filed Director Review requests for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314. Motorola Solutions, the petitioner, may file a concise response within five business days, limited to the issues raised.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2024

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01293

Bitsgap Holding and related crypto‑trading entities settled their dispute with Intercurrency Software, resulting in the Board terminating four IPRs before trial. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2024

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Aug 15, 2024

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
patent · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01314

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
patent · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01314

Stellar, LLC petitions the PTAB Director to overturn institution decisions for Motorola Solutions' patents, alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and abused discretion under § 314(a). The request focuses on claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 10,965,910.
1 •••256257258•••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 →