Patent Cases

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00376

Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00369

Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Calabrese Stemer LLC's credit card authorization patent (7954706). The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00368

Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Calabrese Stemer LLC, asserting that the '564 patent' claims are anticipated by prior art (Horie). The Board found sufficient likelihood of success regarding Claim 1 based on the prior art disclosure of card usage status notifications.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00367

The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.

TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC

· IPR2024-00366

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. successfully challenged ATI Technologies ULC's patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner on specific grounds, leading to an institution decision.

SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-00340

Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00378

The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00377

The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00376

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 1, 2024

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00375

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00369

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 1, 2024

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00368

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 1, 2024

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00367

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art reference, Horie, anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This decision relates to Mobile Payment Authorization technology and is tied to related District Court litigation.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 1, 2024

Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · 78762563

Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 1, 2024

Ibrum Technologies v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · 110834946

Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.

patent pending · Feb 1, 2024

Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 184170759

The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 31, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001624

This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including the admission of late-filed prior art document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 31, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001623

Unified Patent Court decision.

patent LITIGATION · Jan 31, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001622

This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich). Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters including the admission of late-filed document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date. The Court admitted document D46 into the proceedings, set the value of the proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and confirmed the oral hearing for 17 April 2024.

patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00532

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00520

Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).

patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC

· IPR2024-00389

Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00333

Apple challenges Carbyne Biometrics' patent 11475105 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art references like Kesanupalli and Cheng render multiple claims unpatentable.

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00532

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00520

Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.

Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC

· IPR2024-00389

Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.