Patent Cases

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

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

Page 320 of 453

patent denied · May 1, 2024

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC

· IPR2024-00314

Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
patent In favor of Plaintiff · May 1, 2024

Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 62629470

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
patent pending · May 1, 2024

Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises

Delhi High Court - Orders · 126337451

The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
patent defendant favorable · May 1, 2024

Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 22802879

Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001514

This order concerns a subsequent request by the patent proprietor (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to amend European patent EP 3 646 825 in revocation proceedings brought by Meril Italy srl. The defendant sought to replace its earlier rejected application (containing 84 auxiliary requests) with a streamlined request comprising one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court admitted the subsequent request, exercising its discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP, and granted the claimant one month to file an additional defence.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001513

This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001512

10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1 concerning methods and arrays for localized detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court found that 10x Genomics had standing as the registered patent proprietor and that Curio Bioscience's product fell within the scope of patent claim 14. The court granted a partial injunction limited to the specific embodiment of claim 14, ordered mutual provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 100,000, and required 10x Genomics to post security of EUR 2,000,000 before enforcement.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001511

Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff in a standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315 before the Local Chamber Mannheim, sought a court order directing itself to submit two license agreements that it could not voluntarily disclose due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the submission of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic for its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001510

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) addressed whether a patent proprietor may amend claims that were not challenged in a revocation action. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier sought to amend the patent with respect to additional non-challenged claims. The Court held that the right to amend a patent during litigation is a defensive tool limited to reacting to the invalidity challenge, and therefore declared the amendment request inadmissible with regard to claims other than claim 1.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001509

10x Genomics, Inc. sought provisional measures against Curio Bioscience Inc. before the Local Division in Düsseldorf for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which protects methods and products for localised detection of nucleic acid in tissue samples. The court granted a partial injunction restraining Curio Bioscience from offering, marketing, using, or possessing certain arrays with poly-T capture probes in Germany, France, and Sweden, subject to 10x Genomics providing security of EUR 2,000,000. Both parties were ordered to provisionally reimburse each other's costs in the amount of EUR 100,000 each, reflecting their partial success.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 30, 2024

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001508

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270 in a standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute. Panasonic Holdings Corporation, as plaintiff, sought a production order directed against itself to compel the submission of two license agreements whose disclosure was restricted by confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, permitting redactions of passages not relied upon by the plaintiff, while rejecting further requests.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB for permission to file a reply brief in its post‑grant review against GOMACO, citing alleged mischaracterizations and new arguments by the petitioner. The request emphasizes good cause and a rapid turnaround.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision upholding the eligibility of its ’723 slipform paver patent. The owner alleges factual, legal, and evidentiary errors, including misapplied collateral estoppel and ignored claim‑construction issues.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

Gomaco seeks denial of G&Z’s Director Review request, arguing the issues have been repeatedly litigated and that non‑appealable institution decisions cannot create collateral estoppel. The Board agrees, finding no new evidence and confirming PGR eligibility.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· PGR2024-00026

The USPTO Director denied GOMACO's request for a review of the institution decision in a post‑grant review of patent 11,772,723, leaving the institution in place.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

The PTAB held that all 15 claims of the ’571 slipform paving machine patent are unpatentable, finding the claims obvious over the CIII operator manual combined with Rio’s rotary actuator and other prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s slipform paver patent are obvious over the CIII operator manual and Rio’s rotary actuator, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the prior Board decision in place.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

Gomaco urges the PTAB Director to deny G&Z’s review request, arguing that the Board’s obviousness finding for the ’318 slipform paver patent is fully supported by the CIII and Rio prior art. The petitioner contends no claim construction is needed and that the Board’s reasoning is adequate.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

GOMACO challenges the PTAB’s decision on a slipform paver patent, asserting the Board failed to resolve a key claim‑construction issue and erred in its obviousness and copying analyses. The patent owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the institution in place.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that barred it from submitting examiner interview evidence in an IPR covering claims 1‑8 of a construction‑equipment patent.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00788

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB Director to allow a reply brief in IPR2024-00835, arguing that Gomaco introduced new, unsupported arguments about its GT‑3200 paving machine and mischaracterized the record.
patent · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

· IPR2024-00835

The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
1 •••319320321•••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 →