Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 364 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities regarding European Patent EP3988471. The order addresses the extension and alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence, following difficulties with service of the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur aligned the starting point for the Statement of Defence period for all three defendants to 15/01/2024, with the deadline set at 15/04/2024.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001615

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court addressed multiple procedural applications, including a review of a prior refusal to allow amendment for indirect infringement of a process claim, and requests by both parties to extend the proceedings to Romania following its accession to the UPC Agreement on September 1, 2024. The court granted the amendments, revised its prior order, set a new briefing schedule, increased the dispute value to €1.25 million each, and allowed appeal.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001614

Unified Patent Court decision.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. and Others

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001613

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ICPillar LLC for an alternative method of service of its Statement of Claim in an infringement action against 12 defendants belonging to the ARM group of companies. The Court authorized alternative methods of service for Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. after standard service failed, but dismissed the request regarding UK entities because service under the Hague Service Convention was still in progress.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001612

Unified Patent Court decision.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 12, 2024

DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott France, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Oy, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Logistics B.V., and Newyu, Inc.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001611

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.

patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.

patent · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

patent · Feb 12, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00191

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.

patent · Feb 12, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00241

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.

patent denied · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.

patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00191

Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 12, 2024

Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 95188447

Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 12, 2024

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Malla Rajiv

Delhi High Court - Orders · 3703203

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. against Malla Rajiv for infringing on their trademarks and copyrights related to packaged drinking water. The court found that the defendant's use of 'JK COPPER+ WATER' was an unauthorized imitation, causing consumer confusion and diluting the plaintiffs' goodwill associated with brands like 'TATA COPPER+ WATER'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction, damages amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs, and recovery of actual legal costs.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01270

Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s data‑mapping patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misread claim scope and the combination of Belanger and Halevy references.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01272

Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ’734 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misread the claim scope by improperly tying it to a non‑limiting table example. Google seeks reversal so the trial can proceed.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00011

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01481

Lenovo and its allies have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of Universal Connectivity Technologies' serial‑communication patent, alleging obviousness over Auld, MPEG‑2, Shin and Hiroshima references.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01429

HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC

· IPR2024-01446

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01428

HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Universal Connectivity’s packet‑preemption patent, arguing it is anticipated and obvious over earlier Banes and Calvignac disclosures.

patent instituted · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01272

Google LLC petitioned the PTAB challenging Metarail's patent covering automated deep-link creation based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the petition showed a strong basis on the merits and decided to institute review of all 20 claims. This decision moves the dispute into the substantive examination phase at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

patent null · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patent (10262342) at the PTAB, asserting that the claims are obvious.

patent instituted · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01270

Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.

patent · Feb 10, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01269

Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Metarail's '626 patent, arguing that its claims regarding parameter mapping and deep linking automation are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references, including Belanger, Halevy, and Reichardt, to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00011

The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.

patent denied · Feb 10, 2024

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.

· IPR2024-01481

The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.

1 •••363 364 365•••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 →