Patent Cases

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

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

Page 315 of 453

patent null · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01047

Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,699,223, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art in media streaming and routing. The petition focuses on combining Zhang's framework with Moore's concepts to enable enhanced user control and device selection capabilities.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01141

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against Nokia's patent (8036273), allowing Amazon to proceed with its obviousness arguments. The Board found that the combination of prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto plausibly teaches the claimed sub-pixel interpolation methods.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01140

Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Nokia's patent (7280599) regarding video compression and sub-pixel interpolation. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto, leading to the institution of all 51 challenged claims.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01139

Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nokia's video compression patents based on obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for unpatentability. This decision sets a significant precedent in challenging complex technical claims using combined software/hardware disclosures.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01134

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully challenged five claims of Optronic Sciences LLC's '9406733 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds. The Board issued an institution decision after construing the key term 'auxiliary electrode' to include bus lines and wires.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01133

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences, LLC regarding display technology patents. The Board granted institution after a favorable claim construction of 'auxiliary electrode,' finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01130

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent, leading to a trial decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding at least one challenged claim (5-9).
patent denied · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01050

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
patent instituted · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01048

Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
patent denied · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01049

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
patent denied · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01047

Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
patent Final Written Decision · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01133

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
patent Final Written Decision · May 7, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01130

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
patent final · May 7, 2024

Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.

· IPR2024-01048

The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
patent pending · May 7, 2024

Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 140099760

The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
patent defendant favorable · May 7, 2024

Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 195938980

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that since full patent rights only commence upon grant, counting the twenty-year term from the date of application is contradictory. The respondents argued that both sections operate at different stages and are compliant with international obligations like TRIPS Agreement. The Court ultimately held that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution.
patent LITIGATION · May 6, 2024

Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-001502

This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request under Rule 262A RoP for a confidentiality order. The applicant Oerlikon sought to protect financial information (document no. 19) filed in preparation for the Interim Conference regarding costs documentation, requesting that access be limited to a 'club' of only Bhagat's lawyers, excluding the party itself. The respondent Bhagat did not oppose the request, and the court granted the confidentiality order, finding the information qualified as confidential under Article 58 UPCA.
patent LITIGATION · May 6, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_218/2023)

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001501

The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 RoP in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315 against multiple Xiaomi-related defendants. The court separated the proceedings against the four defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong (Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8), whose complaints had not yet been served, from the main proceedings against the remaining defendants already represented by counsel, to allow the main case to proceed without delay.
patent LITIGATION · May 6, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (UPC_CFI_223/2023)

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001500

Order of the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court dated May 6, 2024, concerning EP 2 207 270, separating the proceedings against four Xiaomi defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong from the main proceedings. The separation was ordered under Rule 303.2 RoP because service to those defendants must be effected abroad via the Hague Service Convention, which would delay the proceedings, while the remaining defendants were already represented by counsel.
patent LITIGATION · May 6, 2024

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS (with Photon Wave Co., Ltd. as Intervening Party)

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001499

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning an infringement action filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against Laser Components SAS regarding European patent EP3404726. The intervening party, Photon Wave Co., Ltd. (Laser Components' supplier), sought to autonomously file a counterclaim for invalidity, obtain an extension of deadlines, and change the language of proceedings from French to English. The court rejected all of Photon Wave's procedural requests, ruling that an intervenor cannot develop autonomous claims contrary to the party it supports, and that the language change was not justified.
patent LITIGATION · May 6, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al. (EP 2 568 724)

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001498

This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (Xiaomi entities based in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service abroad under the Hague Service Convention would take considerable time and would delay the proceedings against the other defendants who were already represented by counsel.
patent · May 6, 2024

Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00994

Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
patent · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01002

Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 8,858,534.
patent · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01002

Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
patent terminated or settled · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01001

Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent · May 6, 2024

Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.

· IPR2024-00952

Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
patent · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01001

Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
patent terminated or settled · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01002

Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
patent · May 6, 2024

Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00994

Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
patent · May 6, 2024

Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.

· IPR2024-01001

Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,806,554. An unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding has been filed, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
1 •••314315316•••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 →