US PTAB IP Litigation

patent null · Feb 23, 2024

Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.

patent instituted · Feb 23, 2024

Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.

patent final · Feb 23, 2024

Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.

patent instituted · Feb 22, 2024

The IPR petition against EVONIK's gas separation membrane technology failed as the Petitioner could not establish unpatentability. The Board found that the combination of cited prior art references lacked a sufficient motivation to combine, upholding the patent's validity.

Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE

· IPR2024-00603

Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.

patent null · Feb 22, 2024

Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC

· IPR2024-00597

Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.

patent instituted · Feb 22, 2024

Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE

· IPR2024-00603

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 22, 2024

Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC

· IPR2024-00597

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The parties filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.

patent · Feb 21, 2024

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

Arm Limited and patent owner ICPillar LLC have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.

patent · Feb 21, 2024

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.

patent · Feb 21, 2024

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

patent denied · Feb 21, 2024

Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

patent null · Feb 21, 2024

The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.

i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB

· IPR2024-00602

i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.

patent instituted · Feb 21, 2024

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

patent null · Feb 21, 2024

Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

patent denied · Feb 21, 2024

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.

i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB

· IPR2024-00602

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.

patent instituted · Feb 21, 2024

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.

· IPR2024-00580

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.

patent instituted · Feb 21, 2024

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.