Patent Cases

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

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

Page 310 of 424

patent settled · Feb 13, 2024

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 61305505

Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
patent dismissed · Feb 13, 2024

Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · 148657489

The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
patent mixed · Feb 13, 2024

Made Easy Education Private Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 185987633

The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001616

This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001614

In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001613

ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001612

In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001612, ICPillar LLC appeared in dispute with ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott France, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001611

This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, including multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The dispute centered on the alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence (SoD) across all defendants, given that service on some defendants was delayed or still in progress. Following a case management meeting where all parties orally agreed on a reasonable extension date, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered that the time limit for filing the SoD be aligned for all defendants, with the starting point set at 15 December 2023 and the SoD expected by 15 March 2024.
patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent · Feb 12, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00191

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
patent · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
patent denied · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.
patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00191

Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 12, 2024

Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 95188447

Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 12, 2024

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Malla Rajiv

Delhi High Court - Orders · 3703203

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. against Malla Rajiv for infringing on their trademarks and copyrights related to packaged drinking water. The court found that the defendant's use of 'JK COPPER+ WATER' was an unauthorized imitation, causing consumer confusion and diluting the plaintiffs' goodwill associated with brands like 'TATA COPPER+ WATER'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction, damages amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs, and recovery of actual legal costs.
patent · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
patent · Feb 10, 2024

HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01429

HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
patent · Feb 10, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC

· IPR2024-01446

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
patent instituted · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01270

Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01481

The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01429

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01428

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
patent · Feb 9, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc./Netgear Deutschland GmbH/Netgear International Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001700

This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321. The central procedural issue was whether to change the procedural language from German to English, given that both patents were granted in English and two members of the panel were not native German speakers. While the defendants consented to a full language change and the plaintiff opposed it but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English, the presiding judge ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English while keeping the procedural language as German.
patent · Feb 9, 2024

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001661

This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
patent · Feb 9, 2024

ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001619

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
1 •••309310311•••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 →