Patent Cases

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

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

Page 289 of 453

patent terminated or settled · Jun 25, 2024

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01046

Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01043

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under the settlement confidentiality provisions.
patent instituted · Jun 25, 2024

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01067

smaXtec Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge a key patent held by ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC at the PTAB. The petition asserts seven grounds of invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jun 25, 2024

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01046

Sony Corporation successfully challenged Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent, arguing the claims were obvious over prior art references like Niikawa and Watanabe-JP. The Board agreed to institute review, resulting in the cancellation of several key claims related to in-camera image processing.
patent null · Jun 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01043

Amazon challenged Nokia's patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,689,939) before the PTAB, arguing that claims related to mobile device user interfaces are obvious under Section 103. The challenger asserts that combining prior art teachings regarding limited access and UI enhancements results in predictable features.
patent null · Jun 25, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01038

Canadian Solar Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Maxeon Solar's solar cell patent (11,251,315), asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining a back-contact structure with decades of prior art regarding doping concentrations and metal impurities renders the invention predictable. This initial petition focuses on establishing clear grounds for unpatentability in photovoltaic technology.
patent null · Jun 25, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01031

Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Patent No. 11659315 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103) related to active noise reduction and audio assistant devices. The petition asserts that various combinations of prior art references render multiple claims invalid.
patent instituted · Jun 25, 2024

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01067

The PTAB instituted the IPR for smaXtec Inc. against ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC after finding sufficient evidence of unpatentability in several claims. The Board specifically found that Claim 5 was anticipated by Harvey and determined there was a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal.
patent instituted · Jun 25, 2024

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01046

Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
patent instituted · Jun 25, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01043

Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Nokia regarding mobile device user interface claims related to locked-state application interaction. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Jun 25, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01038

Canadian Solar successfully instituted its IPR against Maxeon Solar regarding solar cell fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for several claims over various combinations of prior art, authorizing trial on multiple claims.
patent final · Jun 25, 2024

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01067

The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
patent final · Jun 25, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01038

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 25, 2024

Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 69215779

Rhodia Operations appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected citing lack of inventive step and being a mere admixture. The appellant argued that the crucial feature—the formation of a double population structure—was ignored by the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses in the rejection order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 25, 2024

West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v.M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Calcutta High Court · 147642971

The petitioner, an API manufacturer, claimed that the respondents were infringing their patents (IN370845 and IN434424) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for granting the injunction.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 24, 2024

Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH & Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001425

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB sought a determination that the time limits for filing its reply to the statement of defense and its response to the counterclaim for revocation began running on May 28, 2024, when it was granted access to confidential information, or alternatively, an extension of those deadlines to July 28, 2024. The court extended both deadlines to July 28, 2024, finding that the initial restriction of access to confidential passages of the defendants' pleadings constituted an exceptional case justifying an extension, but rejected the request to deem the time limits as having started on May 28, 2024.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 24, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00969

ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan and Foras Technologies filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the IPR, effectively ending the dispute.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 24, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00969

ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan, and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to withdraw the IPR petition for U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes and requesting termination of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 24, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00969

ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent null · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01040

Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
patent null · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01039

Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
patent instituted · Jun 24, 2024

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00969

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01040

Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
patent instituted · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01039

Canadian Solar Inc.'s IPR petition against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to support its arguments regarding prior art combinations in solar cell technology.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01040

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 24, 2024

Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2024-01039

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 24, 2024

Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Bombay High Court · 175995868

Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 21, 2024

Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001428

This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 21, 2024

Spyra v.Amycel LLC (Procedural Order on R. 109 RoP)

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001427

A procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a request by the Defendant, Szymon Spyra, for simultaneous interpretation between English and Polish during an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings. The court rejected the request for court-arranged interpretation under R. 109.1 RoP (whose costs would become costs of the proceedings) but allowed the Defendant to engage an interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 21, 2024

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001426

Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG and the counterclaim for revocation filed by the CUPOWER defendants together in a single proceeding. The decision was based on efficiency considerations, the moderate complexity of the technology, and the need for early assignment of a technically qualified judge.
1 •••288289290•••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 →