Patent Cases

patent instituted · Jul 15, 2024

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.

· IPR2024-01177

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01057

The PTAB denied Roku's request to institute IPR against the '848 patent, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the failure of the Petitioner to prove that key prior art (Seet) was entitled to its provisional filing date due to lack of written description support for non-audio media.

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01056

Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied by the PTAB after failing to meet institution standards on grounds of obviousness and novelty. The Board rejected arguments regarding 'content offset' data and content identification results disclosed in prior art references like Feininger and Ramaswamy.

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01054

Roku's IPR against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied because the key prior art reference (Seet) lacked written description support for non-audio media, preventing it from qualifying as prior art to the challenged patent.

patent Final Written Decision · Jul 15, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01053

Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the threshold for institution in all challenges. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding 'content offset,' requiring it to be relative to a reference point within the content.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.

patent No outcome · Jul 15, 2024

Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 72307037

The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.

patent interim order · Jul 15, 2024

Ht Process Controls Private Limited v.Ankur Gupta & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 38416172

The petitioner, Ht Process Controls Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of its intellectual property rights over confidential information and technical know-how related to an automatic robotic system for gas cylinder handling. The Court passed several orders allowing various applications, including granting exemptions and directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct searches and seizures at the defendants' premises.

patent remanded · Jul 15, 2024

Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 181081087

Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 12, 2024

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001393

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1. The Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing (scheduled for September 5, 2024) from German into English, arguing that its Korean representatives did not speak German. The court denied the request, holding that since Germany had designated English as an additional procedural language at the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the plaintiff could have chosen English as the procedural language and avoided the need for interpretation altogether. The plaintiff was instead permitted to hire its own interpreter at its own expense.

patent dismissed · Jul 12, 2024

M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores

Madras High Court · 18877830

M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.

patent pending · Jul 12, 2024

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 152665605

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 11, 2024

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001396

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 11, 2024

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001395

KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 11, 2024

Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001394

This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00109

Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.

patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC

· IPR2025-00101

Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

Jumio filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no settled expectations justify discretionary denial.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00108

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00107

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00107

The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00107

Jumio’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent is met with a detailed response asserting that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no discretionary denial applies.