Patent Cases

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

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

Page 270 of 453

patent pending · Jul 29, 2024

Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 28, 2024

Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.

· IPR2024-01234

Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.

patent · Jul 28, 2024

Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.

· IPR2024-01234

Hugging Face, Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against FriendliAI Inc., arguing that the challenged claims related to Transformer inference optimization are obvious.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001376

This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

CANÈ S.p.A. v.France Développement Électronique

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001375

CANÈ S.p.A., an Italian company and proprietor of European patent EP3181168, brought a patent infringement action against France Développement Électronique (FDE) before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement through the delivery and offering of 'So-Easy' devices in France, Germany, and Italy. FDE did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement but undertook to cease infringing activities. The parties reached a settlement agreement on June 20, 2024, which the court homologated, ordering reimbursement of €9,100 in procedural fees to CANÈ and withdrawal of certain exhibits from the proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Others v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH (Language of Proceedings Order)

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001374

Roche Diabetes Care GmbH filed an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care entities and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing of interests is equal between international parties, the position of the defendant is the decisive factor.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001373

This order from the Court of Appeal concerns an application by ICPillar LLC under R.262A RoP for confidentiality regarding Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal in proceedings concerning patent EP 3000239. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request for confidentiality, finding the reasons insufficient to justify protection of the information. The Court then addressed procedural consequences, granting ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response while rejecting ICPillar's argument that this created an equality of arms issue.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001372

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001371

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. The appellants (OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV) sought to suspend the deadline for filing their rejoinder pending the appeal of a decision by the Brussels local division that refused to extend the deadline beyond August 1, 2024. The standing judge held that the request for suspensive effect was admissible but unfounded, and referred the remaining requests to the competent chamber of the Court of Appeal.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 26, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, Apical Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco (UK) Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001370

This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application under R.262A RoP for confidentiality in appeal proceedings related to a security for costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected ICPillar's request to keep certain parts of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) to its Statement of appeal confidential, and ordered that the unrestricted version be made available to ARM without any duty of confidentiality. The Court also gave ARM the opportunity to amend its Statement of response but rejected ICPillar's request to amend its own Statement of appeal, finding no equality of arms issue.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

· IPR2024-01230

Thermaltake has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Lian Li’s illumination‑fan patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01210

Stratus Medical defends U.S. Patent 10,736,688 against Avanos Medical’s IPR petition, arguing that the challenges are based on vague, non‑enabling prior art and lack obviousness. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01209

Stratus Medical defends its RF neurotomy patent against Avanos Medical’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art is non‑analogous, vague, and non‑enabling, and highlighting commercial success and industry praise as evidence of non‑obviousness.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

· IPR2024-01230

Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

· IPR2024-01230

Thermaltake seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its LED fan patent unpatentable. The request centers on inconsistent claim‑construction positions between the IPR and parallel district‑court litigation.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01187

Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01233

Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,301,666. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that the Board should end the proceeding before any merits are decided.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01233

Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial, resulting in termination of the proceedings and confidentiality of the settlement agreement.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01233

Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,301,666 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01187

Court decision.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01212

Stratus Medical’s response contends that Avanos’s IPR challenges are legally and technically deficient, emphasizing lack of enablement, teaching away, and strong objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01211

Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01233

Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR Petition challenging 13 claims of a patent covering cyclonic separation and filtration systems. The petition argues that the claimed vacuum cleaner features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core technology in the high-end cleaning appliance market.

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

· IPR2024-01230

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 1-5 of the '336 Patent. The petition asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of various prior art references related to illumination fan assemblies.

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.

· IPR2024-01228

CommScope Technologies LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 49 claims related to modular cassette systems used in fiber optics. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art combinations involving Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.

· IPR2024-01227

CommScope and others challenged Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter. The petitioner focuses heavily on how these existing designs meet specific structural limitations of the patented technology.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.

· IPR2024-01218

CommScope Technologies LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are invalid based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Specifically, they argue prior art references such as Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor render the claimed features unpatentable.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01212

Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01211

Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.

patent · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01210

Avanos Medical challenged Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent, arguing that the claimed deployable filament features are obvious.

1 •••269 270 271•••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 →