Patent Cases

patent denied · Mar 19, 2024

Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Nokia’s video‑decoding patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board misapplied MPEG‑1 and Kim disclosures, which describe encoder outputs, not the decoder resetting required by the claims.

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

patent instituted · Mar 19, 2024

The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC

· IPR2024-00707

Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against Cobblestone Wireless's '802 Patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art standards like IEEE 802.11n D2.0 and Shearer.

patent null · Mar 19, 2024

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

patent instituted · Mar 19, 2024

Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC

· IPR2024-00707

The PTAB institution decision upheld the Petitioner's challenge of nine claims based on obviousness in wireless communication technology. The Board accepted that prior art disclosures, including IEEE standards and Shearer, support the claimed dual-frequency transmission structure.

patent instituted · Mar 19, 2024

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

The PTAB granted institution for the patent covering video coding methods related to grouping image frames. The petitioner successfully argued that the claims are obvious over prior art references like MPEG-1, Yagasaki, and Kim. This decision sets a precedent regarding how standard technical specifications can teach complex encoding mechanisms.

Madras High Court · 90639775

Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs

Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).

Madras High Court · 151126426

Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).

patent defendant favorable · Mar 19, 2024

M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT LTD v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd

Gauhati High Court · 177316120

M/S Sumotek Innovation Pvt Ltd (Appellant No. 1) filed a suit seeking declaration of rights and permanent injunction against Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd (Respondent No. 2) for using their patented technology (Patent No. 208216). The appeal challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the interim injunction application, which was based on lack of locus standi. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant might have locus standi, they did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction due to the patent nearing its expiry.

Madras High Court · 176863822

Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.

Madras High Court · 70810816

Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).

patent LITIGATION · Mar 18, 2024

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Osaka University and Healios K.K.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001560

This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued a procedural order addressing the admissibility of a second declaration (D21), setting the value of the dispute at EUR 4,000,000 for cost ceiling purposes, establishing deadlines for cost-related submissions, and confirming the oral hearing date for 26 June 2024.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 18, 2024

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001559

This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the admission of evidence, the value of the dispute, costs submissions, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2024-00701

The Board granted Samsung Electronics’ motion to join an existing IPR against Intent IQ’s ’878 patent, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23. The joinder was found timely and without prejudice, consolidating the proceedings with the Meta Platforms IPR.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00552

Greenthread has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 11,121,222 are obvious. The appeal contests the Board’s claim constructions and analysis of prior art.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00550

Greenthread has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,510,842 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in obviousness analysis and claim construction.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00551

Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00552

The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00553

The PTAB held that Monolithic Power Systems proved all challenged claims of Greenthread’s 11,316,014 patent obvious over Kawagoe, Onoda and Nishizawa, rendering the claims unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00550

Monolithic Power Systems successfully challenged Greenthread’s U.S. Pat. 10,510,842, proving all asserted claims obvious over prior‑art references. The Board affirmed the petition, rendering the claims unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00551

The PTAB held that all 22 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’481 patent are obvious over prior art and thus unpatentable. Monolithic Power Systems successfully defended its position, while Greenthread’s privity and licensing arguments were rejected.

patent null · Mar 18, 2024

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00553

Greenthread files a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that 20 claims of its power‑management patent are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in obviousness analysis and claim construction.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC

· IPR2024-00701

Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00553

Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00552

Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00551

Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.