US PTAB IP Litigation

patent null · Feb 23, 2024

Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.

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

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 · Feb 22, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00603

The Petitioner failed to prove that the challenged claims of Patent No. 9,023,203 B2 were unpatentable by obviousness over prior art references Yokoyama, Cline, and Honermann. The Board found insufficient motivation for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to make the claimed structural modifications or reorient existing devices.

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.

· IPR2024-00563

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.

· IPR2024-00563

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.

patent denied · Feb 21, 2024

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

· IPR2024-00563

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