Patent Cases

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

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

Page 313 of 453

patent final · May 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
patent interim order · May 9, 2024

Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 29177875

WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001497

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and jurisdictional concerns regarding UK damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP, partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001496

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001495

This case concerns an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in Munich regarding EP 1 552 399 B1, against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP, challenging the court's jurisdiction, the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, NST's standing, the scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001494

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by the defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001493

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001492

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and claims already pending in US proceedings. The Court dismissed the applications under rule 361 RoP and partially dismissed the preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP, deferring the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding for reasons of case management efficiency.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001491

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages and parallel US proceedings. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001490

Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities. The defendants filed preliminary objections under rule 19 RoP and applications under rule 361 RoP seeking dismissal on grounds including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 preliminary objections, and deferred certain jurisdictional questions to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001489

Huawei sued NETGEAR entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserted is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought a production order against itself to introduce a Wi-Fi patent portfolio license agreement with Amazon (dated 5 March 2024) into the proceedings, together with confidentiality protection for its contents. The Local Chamber Munich confirmed the provisional production and confidentiality orders and additionally allowed the use of the license agreement and its confidential information in a related parallel proceeding concerning EP 3 678 321.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001488

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, NST's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's authority over UK-related damages claims. The court dismissed the rule 361 RoP requests and partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, deferring certain jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001487

Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001486

The Local Division in Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH against an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants challenged the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages claims. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001485

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH seeking dismissal of an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 399 B1. The defendants raised issues including invalid opt-out withdrawal, lack of standing, overly broad infringement allegations, and lack of jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications as manifestly unfounded, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the remaining jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
patent LITIGATION · May 8, 2024

Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001484

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed preliminary objections and applications filed by the defendants (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The defendants raised issues regarding the validity of the opt-out withdrawal, the claimant's standing, the sufficiency of infringement allegations, and the court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the rule 361 RoP applications, partially dismissed the rule 19 RoP preliminary objections, and deferred the lack of jurisdiction issues to the main proceeding.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
patent null · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
patent instituted · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
patent final · May 8, 2024

Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.

· IPR2024-01261

The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
patent No outcome · May 8, 2024

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 31543552

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
patent plaintiff favorable · May 8, 2024

Manish Vanigota v.Commissioner of Customs Nagpur

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 157753626

The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of goods and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The case involved various consignments containing prohibited items, including those infringing intellectual property rights, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The Tribunal set aside several penalties, finding that the adjudicating authority failed to elaborate on the specific prescriptions violated.
patent defendant favorable · May 8, 2024

Guala Closures Spa v.Agi Greenpac Limited

Delhi High Court · 184302707

Guala Closures Spa filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent rights against Agi Greenpac Limited, alleging infringement by the latter's 'Voila Closure.' The Plaintiff holds Patent No. 349522 for a tamper-evident closure with a two-level tear-off seal mechanism. The court examined the prima facie case regarding infringement and the necessity of an interim injunction. Ultimately, the Court found that the triple test for granting an injunction was not met, favoring the Defendants' business interests at this preliminary stage.
patent terminated or settled · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01140

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,280,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
patent terminated or settled · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01141

Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate four IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01139

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
patent terminated or settled · May 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

· IPR2024-01134

Samsung Display and BOE have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes in an ITC investigation concerning OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case.
patent · May 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC

· IPR2024-01133

Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the decision and termination of the IPR.
patent terminated or settled · May 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC

· IPR2024-01133

BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to grant withdrawal of pending Director Review requests for the three IPRs.
1 •••312313314•••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 →