Patent Cases

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

The defendants in a UPC 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 SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001527

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

The defendants in a UPC 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 SME. The Local Division Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties in the US or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001526

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

The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen, Audi, and Texas Instruments entities) sought security for legal costs from the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US-based SME, under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties or insolvency risk, and that NST's patent portfolio constituted seizable intangible assets.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001525

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

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 Art. 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 patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted valuable assets that could satisfy any cost order.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001524

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

The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 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 requiring security.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001523

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

The defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) applied for an order requiring the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), to provide security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Local Division in Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the defendants had failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order against NST in the United States, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001522

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

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in the context of an application for provisional measures. The court addressed the language of proceedings after the Court of Appeal changed the language from German to English just two weeks before the final order was due. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the final order may be issued in German with a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delay.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001521

Volkswagen AG and Others v.Network System Technologies LLC

Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) applied for security for legal costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST), the Plaintiff, under Article 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The Defendants argued that NST, a US-based SME with no physical assets, posed an enforcement risk for any future cost order. The Local Division Munich dismissed all three applications, finding that the Defendants had failed to provide concrete evidence of enforcement difficulties in the US or of NST's insolvency risk, and that ordering security would unduly interfere with NST's right to effective remedy as an SME.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001520

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

The defendants (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) under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 669 B1. The Local Division in Munich dismissed the applications, finding that the defendants failed to provide concrete evidence of difficulties in enforcing a cost order in the United States or of NST's insolvency, and that NST's patent portfolio acquired from Philips constituted seizable intangible assets.

patent · Apr 23, 2024

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

patent denied · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.

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

patent denied · Apr 23, 2024

The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.

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

Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.

patent · Apr 23, 2024

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

patent null · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.

Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.

· IPR2024-00834

Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.

patent instituted · Apr 23, 2024

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

patent instituted · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.

Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.

· IPR2024-00834

Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.

patent denied · Apr 23, 2024

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

patent remanded · Apr 23, 2024

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.

Optimedica Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 49043225

Optimedica Corporation appealed a rejection order dated 12.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that the subject matter did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal to proceed by remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the amended claims.

patent pending · Apr 23, 2024

Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 181471945

Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 22, 2024

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001530

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application for intervention (Streithilfe) by Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., the parent company and simple licensee of the plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that the intervention application was admissible, finding that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening on the plaintiff's side to prevent the patent from being retroactively revoked via a nullity counterclaim, and that when a Local Chamber decides to hear the infringement action and nullity counterclaim together, the licensee may intervene in the entire proceedings.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.

Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.

Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.

patent · Apr 22, 2024

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.

Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.

Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2024-00765

Garmin and patent owner Slyde Analytics settled their dispute in IPR2024-00006, resulting in Garmin's termination from the proceeding. The Board treated the settlement agreement as business confidential information.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

The IPR was terminated after the parties settled following institution.

patent null · Apr 22, 2024

Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2024-00765

Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

patent null · Apr 22, 2024

Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.

Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.