Patent Cases

Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.

patent · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.

patent · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

patent denied · Feb 27, 2024

Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00494

The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.

patent null · Feb 27, 2024

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00531

Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.

patent null · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

patent denied · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology filed a Petition with the PTAB challenging claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9619420, arguing that the USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing components like host-to-host bridges and dual-role switching functionality renders the claimed invention predictable to a person skilled in the art.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00558

The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00530

Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Sitnet's patent 9877345. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard for obviousness over multiple prior art references (Gage, Mitchell, Shida).

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00529

Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Sitnet, LLC's '454 patent. The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Amidon and Wong/Gogic, advancing the dispute to trial.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00496

Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00530

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found obviousness over single and combined prior art references (Gage/Mitchell) for original claims, and also determined substitute claims failed both 103 and 101 standards.

patent final · Feb 27, 2024

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00531

The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 20 claims of the patent unpatentable over a combination of Burfeind and Crowley. The Board adopted the petitioner's argument that the challenged claims were obvious, specifically noting that Crowley provided motivation to integrate location-based features into Burfeind's event management system.

patent final · Feb 27, 2024

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00529

The PTAB found that Claims 1-9 and 20 are unpatentable over prior art references (Amidon, Wong, Gogic) based on obviousness. Additionally, the Board granted an Adverse Judgment to cancel claims 10-19.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

patent settled · Feb 27, 2024

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited

Madras High Court · 111494434

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2024

Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 195514586

Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).

patent remanded · Feb 27, 2024

Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design

Madras High Court · 47962808

Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2024

Kewal Krishan Bansal Propreitor Of Ms Vee Pee Bansal And Company v.Puneet Chhabra Propreitor Of Rama Wire Industries

Delhi High Court - Orders · 197470600

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction granted in a trademark and passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff's prior registration history, spanning from 1979, coupled with their copyright registration, strongly supported the initial finding of infringement. The judge noted the suspicious timing of the defendant's attempts to register identical marks after the plaintiff's mark was temporarily removed from the registry due to non-renewal, buttressing the decision to maintain the injunction.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 26, 2024

Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.

Court of Appeal · UPC_0A5496BD3E

ORDER

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001623

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001584

10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001583

AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL

This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001567

NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.

This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024

Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL

· PGR2024-00018

CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024

Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL

· PGR2024-00018

Cimbria SRL and 3U Vision SRL jointly moved to terminate the Post‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent 11,666,947 after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding on public‑policy grounds.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· IPR2024-00497

Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.

SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC

· IPR2024-00615

SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC

· IPR2024-00615

SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.