Patent Cases

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

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

Page 270 of 424

patent denied · May 11, 2024

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00150

Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
patent denied · May 11, 2024

TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC

· IPR2025-00146

The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
patent instituted · May 11, 2024

TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC

· IPR2025-00140

TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
patent instituted · May 11, 2024

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00096

Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
patent denied · May 11, 2024

New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00020

New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
patent · May 10, 2024

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001482

The defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 filed a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing lawsuits. The claimants (respondents to the preliminary objection) countered that the standstill agreement did not affect the court's jurisdiction and that they had complied with the notice period. The Court of First Instance rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
patent · May 10, 2024

CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001481

This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
patent pending · May 10, 2024

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

Delhi High Court - Orders · 193761214

Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 10, 2024

R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes

Delhi District Court · 119842352

The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
patent · May 9, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001669

Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The court addressed the defendants' requests to modify a provisional confidentiality order governing the production of documents. The court granted most modifications, including expanding the definition of legal representatives, increasing the number of reliable persons from one to three, removing the return/destruction obligation, adjusting the penalty provision to require culpability, and cleaning up duplicated obligations.
patent · May 9, 2024

TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001483

1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_498/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 057 321 delivered on 09/05/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 22/12/2023 TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co.
patent · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
patent · May 9, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.
patent terminated or settled · May 9, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
patent terminated or settled · May 9, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
patent · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent null · May 9, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
patent instituted · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
patent instituted · May 9, 2024

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
patent final · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
patent interim order · May 9, 2024

Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 29177875

WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
patent mixed · May 9, 2024

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 173088368

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.
patent · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001495

This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
patent · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001491

This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by the Applicants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments challenged the court's jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and requests pursuant to rules 19 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure.
patent · May 8, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001489

This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
patent · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG v.Respondent

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001486

This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and rule 361 RoP requests.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
patent null · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
1 •••269270271•••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 →