Patent Cases

LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC

· IPR2024-01005

LG Energy Solution successfully instituted its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's patent (9636649) covering polymer composites. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across all 23 claims based on multiple prior art combinations.

LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC

· IPR2024-01006

LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.

MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC

· IPR2024-01000

The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.

SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited

· IPR2024-00993

SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00945

Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00944

Google's IPR challenge against Headwater Research failed at the institution stage, with the PTAB denying the petition. The Board found that Google did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability over prior art Rao and 6 US 8,028,060 B1 for claims 79 and 83.

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00942

Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00943

Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 6, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC

· IPR2024-00897

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging five claims related to channel estimation in MIMO systems. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.

MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC

· PGR2024-00035

MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.

patent Final Written Decision · Jul 6, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00943

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.

patent Final Written Decision · Jul 6, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-00942

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 5, 2024

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001407

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding patent EP 2 697 391. After 10x Genomics appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) that partly dismissed its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, 10x subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and ordered that 10x, as the unsuccessful party, bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

patent denied · Jul 5, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00855

Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.

patent null · Jul 5, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00855

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.

patent denied · Jul 5, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00855

Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 5, 2024

M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · 147461851

The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001412

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.

This is a decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for its reply, covering information about prior and ongoing licensing negotiations and internal business considerations. The Xiaomi defendants did not contest the need for protection but requested modifications to the provisional order, which the court largely granted in a consolidated final order.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001411

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order provides technical and legal guidance to the parties on issues relating to infringement (features 1.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3), validity (novelty attacks based on prior art documents FBD-T11a, T11b, T13, and T14), and the plaintiff's request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The parties were given until July 19, 2024 to submit comments on the points raised.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001410

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for filing their rejoinder and for responding to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications, arguing that the plaintiff's reply still contained redactions. The court partially granted the request, ruling that the deadline for the rejoinder only begins to run upon service of a fully unredacted reply, but rejected the requests to alter or extend the deadlines relating to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001409

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.

This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities. The order addresses Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in connection with its application for an order to produce documents against itself, and the defendants' requests to modify the provisional confidentiality order issued on 09/05/2024.