Patent Cases

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

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

Page 310 of 453

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00918

fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent, challenging claims related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Leaning and Gamble. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial.
patent denied · May 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.
patent denied · May 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
patent denied · May 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00910

Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
patent denied · May 17, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00910

Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
patent instituted · May 17, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00906

Samsung successfully secured institution in this IPR against Maxell, challenging numerous claims of patent 11445241. The Board found sufficient evidence regarding prior art combinations involving N93, Dua, and Herle. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
patent denied · May 17, 2024

Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00871

The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.
patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.
patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00918

Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 16 claims of the '564 patent are unpatentable over prior art, primarily Leaning. The Board construed 'continuous playback' to mean no interruption occurs between files during a rate shift, finding this limitation was taught by Leaning.
patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00917

The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
patent No outcome · May 17, 2024

Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames

Delhi High Court - Orders · 66011448

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.
patent No outcome · May 17, 2024

Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others

Delhi High Court - Orders · 141260417

The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.
patent mixed · May 17, 2024

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India

Madras High Court · 85105639

Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
patent LITIGATION · May 16, 2024

Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001473

Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
patent LITIGATION · May 16, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001472

This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 16, 2024

Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 51799794

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patents, specifically concerning distributor plates and turbo tips compatible with SANDVIK VSI crushers. After initial ex parte orders, the matter was disposed of at a summary stage upon concession by the defendant regarding the injunction.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 16, 2024

Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd

Delhi High Court · 131149347

Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
patent LITIGATION · May 15, 2024

Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001476

Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo), the defendant in a patent infringement action, applied under Rule 262A RoP for an order protecting confidential information contained in its rejoinder and Exhibits GP36 and GP39, which related to experimental data on its Bioo Panels. Plant-e contested the confidentiality, arguing the panels were publicly sold and the data could be reproduced. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) held that the redacted information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA and R.262A.1 RoP, restricted access to a confidentiality club, and imposed a potential penalty payment of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
patent LITIGATION · May 15, 2024

Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001475

This case concerns an application for provisional measures before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) filed three applications seeking security for costs, an increased value of dispute, and allocation of a technically qualified judge. The court ordered the claimant Ballinno B.V. to provide security of €56,000, set the preliminary value of the dispute at €500,000, and dismissed the request for a technically qualified judge.
patent LITIGATION · May 15, 2024

Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) v.Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V. (Application for Protection of Confidential Information)

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001474

Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as 'Bioo'), the defendant in a patent infringement action concerning EP2137782, applied under R.262A RoP for an order protecting certain confidential information contained in its rejoinder and supporting exhibits. The Local Division The Hague held that the redacted experimental data concerning Bioo Panels qualified as confidential information within the meaning of Article 58 UPCA, and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club, with potential penalty payments of up to EUR 100,000 per breach.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 15, 2024

Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 137687667

The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 15, 2024

Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 192660966

Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
patent pending · May 15, 2024

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 126542601

Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
patent pending · May 15, 2024

Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 191870741

Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
patent LITIGATION · May 14, 2024

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001478

This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addresses preparations for an interim conference scheduled for 27 May 2024, balancing the principle of public transparency with the protection of confidential information, particularly regarding litigation costs.
patent LITIGATION · May 14, 2024

Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001477

Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, which relates to video decoding devices for HEVC files. Following the defendants' request to summon NVIDIA Corporation as a third party, the plaintiff sought leave to limit its claims to exclude devices where the claimed video decoding means are implemented by graphics cards sold by NVIDIA or its affiliated companies. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the limitation as an unconditional restriction under R. 263.3 RoP, finding it was not merely a clarification but a permissible narrowing of the claim.
patent mixed · May 14, 2024

Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · 179122820

Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
patent remanded · May 14, 2024

Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 82745184

Syngenta appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 872/DELNP/2011) for 'Crop Safeners' by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The primary objection was the lack of specification regarding the ratio of constituents and novelty issues. The High Court found that the suggested amendments could address the non-specification issue and remanded the application for a fresh hearing.
patent LITIGATION · May 13, 2024

VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA) v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, and Hanshow Netherlands B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001480

This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 883 277, which relates to electronic labels for displaying information in retail spaces. The appellant (VusionGroup SA, formerly SES-imagotag SA) sought interim measures against various Hanshow entities, alleging infringement of the patent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused products (various Nebular and Stellar Pro models) fell within the scope of claim 1 of the patent, particularly because it did not demonstrate that the antenna was positioned further toward the front face of the electronic label than the printed circuit board.
patent LITIGATION · May 13, 2024

Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Lenovo EMEA DC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001479

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC. Defendants 3 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH) and 4 (Digital River Ireland, Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline to align with that of Defendants 1 and 2. After the claimant consented to the extension, the court granted the request, extending the opposition deadline under Rule 19.1 RoP to 17 May 2024.
1 •••309310311•••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 →