Patent Cases

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

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

Page 323 of 453

patent denied · Apr 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00793

The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 26, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00846

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
patent final · Apr 26, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00828

The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
patent pending · Apr 26, 2024

Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 33222762

Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 26, 2024

Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 176282344

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 26, 2024

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta

Delhi High Court - Orders · 171678258

In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 25, 2024

Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Ex Parte

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001517

Procedural Order
patent · Apr 25, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00025

Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s 11,707,033 corn plant patent, arguing it is an obvious copy of earlier varieties. The petition seeks Director review to correct the Board’s alleged legal error.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00025

The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request to review the PTAB's denial of institution for Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed‑technology patent, leaving the denial in place.
patent · Apr 25, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00025

Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
patent null · Apr 25, 2024

RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG

· IPR2024-00851

RJ Machine Company has filed an opening petition challenging Schneider’s connector apparatus patent (9851030). The petitioner argues that the claimed union nut connectors are conventional and obvious, citing prior art from the oil and gas industry. This challenge targets multiple grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
patent null · Apr 25, 2024

Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S

· IPR2024-00849

Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,151 held by 3Shape A/S. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to dental shade determination are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103).
patent null · Apr 25, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00814

Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00025

The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024

RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG

· IPR2024-00851

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by RJ Machine Company against Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG. The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), particularly concerning the means-plus-function claim construction of 'sealing means.'
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024

Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S

· IPR2024-00849

Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's IPR petition against 3Shape A/S was denied institution by the PTAB. The Board found that despite some arguments, the similarities to prior proceedings and resource constraints warranted denial under discretionary authority.
patent instituted · Apr 25, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00814

Toyota Motor Corp.'s IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the challenge of numerous claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with challenging key features related to vehicle profile management and cloud services.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 25, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00814

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
patent pending · Apr 25, 2024

ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 155639395

ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
patent pending · Apr 25, 2024

Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 143686375

Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 24, 2024

Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International Inc.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001519

Nicoventures Trading Limited, a party to EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3 430 921, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat). The Court granted access to all written pleadings and evidence currently contained in the CMS, but rejected requests for court-generated documents, future materials, and materials not yet visible through the CMS.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 24, 2024

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001518

Huawei sued Netgear entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which is essential for the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Netgear raised an exhaustion defense based on a Qualcomm chip in some accused embodiments and sought production of Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm. The Local Chamber Munich ordered Huawei to produce the agreement with confidentiality protections and a daily coercive fine of up to €20,000, while rejecting the remaining requests of both parties.
patent null · Apr 24, 2024

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated

· IPR2024-00802

Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
patent denied · Apr 24, 2024

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated

· IPR2024-00802

ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
patent In favor of Plaintiff · Apr 24, 2024

Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 189338332

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
patent pending · Apr 24, 2024

SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 64684685

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
patent interim order · Apr 24, 2024

Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 175706180

The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 24, 2024

Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 183455282

Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
patent remanded · Apr 24, 2024

Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 112046703

Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 23, 2024

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

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001529

The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based company, under Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's non-EU domicile could not serve as a basis for ordering security.
1 •••322323324•••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 →