Patent Cases

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

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

Page 295 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 19, 2024

Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).

patent mixed · Mar 19, 2024

Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 58568158

This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.

patent mixed · Mar 19, 2024

Abhishek Kumar Goyal v.M/S Diyaa Enterprises & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 158385160

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by the appellant against a Hearing Officer's decision in a trademark opposition case concerning detergent products. The court found that the original officer erred by comparing the respondent's mark with only the appellant's word mark, ignoring the appellant's prior device mark which was on record and presented during hearings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh, de novo hearing.

patent · Mar 18, 2024

ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Osaka University, Healios K.K

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001560

This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K. and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, addressing procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing. Key decisions included confirming the parties' maintained requests, addressing the status of parallel EPO opposition proceedings (with defendants declining a stay), and admitting the second declaration (D21) into the proceedings subject to conditions on the defendants' reply.

patent · Mar 18, 2024

ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001559

This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.

patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2024-00701

The Board granted Samsung Electronics’ motion to join an existing IPR against Intent IQ’s ’878 patent, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23. The joinder was found timely and without prejudice, consolidating the proceedings with the Meta Platforms IPR.

patent · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00551

Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00552

The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.

patent null · Mar 18, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2024-00701

Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.

patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00553

Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.

patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00552

Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.

patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00551

Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.

patent final · Mar 18, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2024-00701

The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the petitioner's challenge to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10715878. The Board found that the evidence failed to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, upholding the patent owner’s rights regarding targeted advertising methods.

patent defendant favorable ★ Landmark · Mar 18, 2024

Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 63168386

Sulphur Mills Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against several defendants, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent IN 282429 for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition.' The plaintiff argued that their composition offered significant advantages over existing fertilizers, such as faster sulphate conversion and compatibility with modern irrigation. However, the court found that the defendants had successfully established a credible challenge to the patent's validity on the grounds of obviousness based on extensive prior art.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 18, 2024

BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 146194465

BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 18, 2024

Puma Se v.K.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 90509888

The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 15, 2024

Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · P7204364

Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, arguing that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh board. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the independent duty to assess its merit.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 15, 2024

E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India

Madras High Court · P116971854

International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.

patent · Mar 15, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.

· IPR2024-00695

Cisco’s IPR against Video Solutions’ video‑encoding patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Board ignored evidence, introduced new arguments, and misapplied the Fintiv compelling‑merits standard.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.

· IPR2024-00702

Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.

· IPR2024-00702

Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

patent · Mar 15, 2024

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.

· IPR2024-00702

Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.

· IPR2024-00695

Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

patent · Mar 15, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.

· IPR2024-00695

Cisco and Video Solutions have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,426 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.

· IPR2024-00695

Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-00692

The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board was urged to terminate based on public policy favoring settlement and the lack of any merits decision.

patent · Mar 15, 2024

Capital One, National Association et al. v.--

· IPR2024-00643

Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00627

Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267. They jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 15, 2024

Capital One, National Association et al. v.--

· IPR2024-00643

Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.

patent denied · Mar 15, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00626

The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.

1 •••294 295 296•••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 →