Patent Cases

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

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

Page 263 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Aug 8, 2024

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001334

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
patent null · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01203

Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
patent null · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01199

Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell fabrication patent (8878053). The petitioner argues that the claimed processes are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining known elements from prior art references like Froitzheim, Gan, and Smith. The Board noted that discretionary denial was unwarranted due to factors related to multiple petitions.
patent null · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01198

Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01203

Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to a trial decision. The Board found that Hanwha demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite arguments regarding prior art scope and predictability.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01199

Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01198

Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent (11251315). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 10-20 over combinations of prior art references like Choi, Granek, and Marvin.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01203

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01199

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
patent final · Aug 8, 2024

Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01198

The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
patent No outcome · Aug 8, 2024

Niranjan Arvind Gosavi v.Innovatiview India Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 155640000

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's technology infringes on their patent, which is related to a tender issued by the National Testing Agency. The plaintiffs seek to compare their patented technology with that of the defendant.
patent No outcome · Aug 8, 2024

Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142486574

The case involves a dispute over the infringement of three patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of their patent rights and an injunction against the defendants' alleged infringement.
patent No outcome · Aug 8, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile

Delhi High Court - Orders · 10363468

The case involves a dispute over the infringement of several patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction and damages for the alleged infringement.
patent remanded · Aug 8, 2024

Mr. Prashant Philips v.M/s. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 160189849

The appeal challenged the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 1196/CHENP/2011, which related to using document length as a static relevance feature for ranking search results. The appellant argued that the invention provided a specific technical effect beyond general computing processes and was not merely an algorithm. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 8, 2024

Tag Heuer S.A. v.Tinya International

Delhi District Court · 5098810

Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit against Tinya International and others alleging infringement of its trademarks (TAG HEUER) and copyrights related to its stylized labels. The court found in favor of Tag Heuer, granting permanent injunctions and awarding specific monetary reliefs.
patent remanded · Aug 8, 2024

M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 63356174

The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
patent remanded · Aug 8, 2024

M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 127816668

The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 202147005676 for a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the invention exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in reducing cataract symptoms in neonatal rabbits. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to properly consider the experimental data demonstrating pharmacodynamic studies and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 7, 2024

Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.

· IPR2024-01135

The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent null · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

Imperative Care, Inc. filed an IPR challenging INARI MEDICAL, INC.'s patent on Intravascular Catheter Valves. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Schaffer or rendered obvious through combinations of Hartley and Eller.
patent null · Aug 7, 2024

Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.

· IPR2024-01135

Petitioner Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833, arguing the methods for maximizing ESPP shares are obvious over prior art combining financial and computer technology.
patent · Aug 7, 2024

Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.

· IPR2024-01135

Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 7, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.

· IPR2024-01157

The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
patent mixed · Aug 7, 2024

Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Vishnu Enterprises & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 7622182

In a significant ruling concerning intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-litigation mediation, while crucially allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Specifically, the court authorized search and seizure operations through Local Commissioners to protect the registered trademarks and copyrights associated with the 'HELL' brand, paving the way for robust enforcement against alleged infringers.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 6, 2024

Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001344

Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 6, 2024

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, and TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001343

NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 6, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001342

Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against several Xiaomi entities, including Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. (based in China), and Xiaomi H.K. Limited (based in Hong Kong). Panasonic sought to serve these Asian Xiaomi entities through Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, a sister company within the same corporate group. The Court of Appeal dismissed Panasonic's appeal, holding that a defendant company in China or Hong Kong cannot be served through a group company in a contracting member state without further justification, and that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention must generally be made before alternative service methods can be employed.
1 •••262263264•••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 →