Patent Cases

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

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

Page 269 of 453

patent interim order · Jul 31, 2024

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited

The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.

patent settled · Jul 31, 2024

Sunita Jaykumar Patel & Anr. v.International Institute Of Pelvic Floor Research Rahab and Education & Ors.

Gujarat High Court · 198772506

This Gujarat High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging a restrictive interim injunction granted in a trademark and copyright dispute. The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to resolve key aspects of the conflict, specifically regarding the use of the 'V Care' mark and the scope of copyright protection for educational materials. Consequently, the court substituted the original injunction order with the terms agreed upon in the MoU, effectively settling the immediate dispute at the injunction stage.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2024

Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001360

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, an HEVC-essential patent. Access Advance LLC, which had intervened on the plaintiff's side to manage the patent pool containing Dolby's HEVC-essential portfolio, applied for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP regarding license agreements it submitted. The court granted the application, holding that an intervener is treated as a party under R. 315.4 RoP and may therefore request confidential treatment of information in its submissions.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2024

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001359

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2024

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Others

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001358

Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision of the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that dismissed its application for provisional measures against multiple Amgen entities concerning EP 3167888. Alongside its appeal, Alexion requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under Rule 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time period for lodging the statement of response.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 30, 2024

BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001357

This order concerns a request by the defendant BEGO Medical GmbH to restrict access to its attorney cost estimates (Annexes ES8 and ES9) filed in a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. The court rejected the request to restrict access from the opposing parties (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) under Rule 262A, holding that the claimants needed full access to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of costs under Article 69 UPCA. However, the court granted the request to restrict public access under Rule 262.2, finding that the public's interest in individually negotiated attorney fees generally yields to the party's interest in confidentiality.

patent remanded · Jul 30, 2024

Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 163174772

The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patent mixed · Jul 30, 2024

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 198453316

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.

patent mixed · Jul 30, 2024

Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents

Delhi High Court · 17692126

Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).

patent remanded · Jul 30, 2024

Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 186619337

Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patent mixed · Jul 30, 2024

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 118141736

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected it on the grounds that the invention was a method of treatment, making it unpatentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the claim described an in vitro method of selecting T-cell lines, not a direct method of treating a patient. The Madras High Court agreed with this distinction, finding that the rejection was based on an erroneous application of law to the facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.

patent interim order · Jul 30, 2024

Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 49066222

The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001369

NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001368

Amgen Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 3 666 797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). After the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024, both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262(1)(b) RoP in proceedings UPC_CFI_263/2023) v.Ex Parte

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001367

An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) concerning European patent EP 3 414 708, involving BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation as parties. The respondents did not object to the application. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that the proceedings had concluded and that no substantial interests under Article 45 UPCA outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the documents.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001366

BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation seeking to invalidate claim 1 of European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended under auxiliary request II, while splitting costs 60% to the claimant and 40% to the defendant.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001365

Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1 RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) concerning EP3831283, a patent owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceeding parties (Abbott, Sibio Technology Limited, and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) opposed the application, arguing that an appeal was pending and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific interest. The Local Division The Hague granted the application, applying the criteria from the Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado v AutoStore, and also granted leave to appeal.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001364

This is a procedural scheduling order from the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3669828. The court addressed the defendants' request to postpone the oral hearing due to the unavailability of their representative, Mr. Würtenberger, who was expecting a child and planning parental leave. Balancing the claimant's right to efficient proceedings within one year against the defendants' right to representation of their choice, the court set the oral hearing for a date in 2025 and the interim conference for a date in 2024.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001363

NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that service by email to a person not authorised to accept service, or by public notice at the Local Division's premises, was not permissible at this stage, and that Hague Convention service methods should normally be attempted first before alternative methods could be employed.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd & Others v.VusionGroup SA

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001362

This case concerns a procedural question before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding where a cost determination application must be filed when it follows an order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that cost determination applications must be filed at the Court of First Instance, even when they relate exclusively or partially to costs of appeal proceedings, and referred Hanshow's application to the Rapporteur of the Court of First Instance.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 29, 2024

Powell Gilbert LLP (Application for Public Access to the Register) v.Ex Parte

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001361

Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from provisional measures proceedings (UPC_CFI_130/2024) concerning patent EP2713879, involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as applicant and Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. as defendants. Both Abbott and Sibio c.s. opposed the request, arguing that the proceedings were still ongoing due to a pending appeal and that Powell Gilbert lacked a sufficiently specific legitimate interest. The Local Division The Hague applied the criteria from Ocado v AutoStore and granted access, holding that the general public interest in understanding and scrutinizing court decisions outweighs the integrity of proceedings once first instance proceedings have ended, even where an appeal is pending.

patent · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.

patent denied · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.

patent · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.

patent null · Jul 29, 2024

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC

· IPR2024-01229

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.

patent · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services challenges Intellectual Ventures II LLC's patent on secure transaction apparatuses, asserting that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on references like Wang et al., Drummond, and TAO to establish grounds for unpatentability under 102 and 103. This initial petition sets up a broad challenge across multiple claim sets related to mobile authentication.

patent denied · Jul 29, 2024

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC

· IPR2024-01229

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.

patent instituted · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.

patent final · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.

patent pending · Jul 29, 2024

Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design

Delhi High Court - Orders · 55471842

Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.

1 •••268 269 270•••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 →