Patent Cases

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

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

Page 259 of 424

patent instituted · Jun 9, 2024

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01324

Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.
patent denied · Jun 9, 2024

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01325

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Quotient Technology against Intelligent Clearing Network regarding patent 10846729. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Aggarwal and Deaton.
patent final · Jun 9, 2024

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01381

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 9, 2024

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01380

The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Jun 8, 2024

2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-01264

A challenger has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808, owned by The Ridge Wallet LLC. The petitioner asserts that the patent's compact wallet structure and auxiliary clip mechanism are obvious combinations of existing prior art references. This challenge targets all 24 claims based on Section 103 (obviousness).
patent denied · Jun 8, 2024

2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-01264

Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
patent · Jun 6, 2024

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

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001721

This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents. The Defendants sought to compel the Plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) to disclose four Board of Directors resolutions from entities within the Avago corporate group relating to the authorization of the patent assignment and the granting of powers of attorney. The Defendants raised doubts about the validity of the powers of attorney (Anlagen K29 and K30) and whether the underlying corporate authorizations had been properly granted.
patent · Jun 6, 2024

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001452

This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European patent EP2145848. The dispute originated from an order for preservation of evidence obtained ex parte following Bhagat's exhibition at the ITMA fair in Milan in June 2023. The defendant denied any knowledge of the patent, denied having commercialized infringing products in the patent-protected territory, and reiterated its commitment not to enter the patent-covered market, while the parties engaged in advanced settlement negotiations. The order addresses procedural matters including the correction of the defendant's name in the introductory act and the evaluation of litigation costs.
patent · Jun 6, 2024

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001451

This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
patent · Jun 6, 2024

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.

· IPR2024-00966

Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.

· IPR2024-00966

The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00977

The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024

Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00998

Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00977

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 related to LCD manufacturing methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). BOE argues that combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.

· IPR2024-00966

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Sfara, Inc.'s patent on vehicle identification technology. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references Fong and Abramson. Petitioner contends that combining sensor signature detection with comparison methods was known in the field.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024

Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00999

The PTAB denied an Inter Partes Review petition against MHL Custom's patent (9586659) filed by Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence. The denial was based on the petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as Petitioner had already lost related litigation using the same prior art.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024

Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00998

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00977

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
patent · Jun 5, 2024

Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.

· PGR2024-00028

Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Jun 5, 2024

Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.

· PGR2024-00028

The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
patent denied · Jun 5, 2024

Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-00895

Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 5, 2024

Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.

· PGR2024-00028

Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all ten challenged claims related to vascular occlusion catheters are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on various combinations of prior art references, primarily under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 5, 2024

Prabhu Soap Works v.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 28860398

Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 5, 2024

Fives Combustion Systems P Ltd v.Vadodara-I

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 196044510

The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
patent · Jun 4, 2024

Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001456

Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
patent · Jun 4, 2024

Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001455

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
patent · Jun 4, 2024

Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001454

Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
patent · Jun 4, 2024

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

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001453

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute between Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (plaintiff) and Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (defendants). The defendants filed a further request under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to produce internal corporate Board of Directors resolutions relating to the authorization of powers of attorney and the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were improperly shifting focus from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making. The text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the final ruling.
patent · Jun 4, 2024

Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Tech v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001409

Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants include Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., various Xiaomi Technology subsidiaries across Europe, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur, addressing preliminary procedural requests in the infringement proceedings.
patent null · Jun 4, 2024

AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy

· IPR2024-00725

Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
1 •••258259260•••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 →