IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 102 of 159 · 4,764 total
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by the Applicants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments challenged the court's jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and requests pursuant to rules 19 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and rule 361 RoP requests.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
Manish Vanigota v.Commissioner of Customs Nagpur
The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of goods and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The case involved various consignments containing prohibited items, including those infringing intellectual property rights, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The Tribunal set aside several penalties, finding that the adjudicating authority failed to elaborate on the specific prescriptions violated.
Guala Closures Spa v.Agi Greenpac Limited
Guala Closures Spa filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent rights against Agi Greenpac Limited, alleging infringement by the latter's 'Voila Closure.' The Plaintiff holds Patent No. 349522 for a tamper-evident closure with a two-level tear-off seal mechanism. The court examined the prima facie case regarding infringement and the necessity of an interim injunction. Ultimately, the Court found that the triple test for granting an injunction was not met, favoring the Defendants' business interests at this preliminary stage.
Greenlam Industries Limited v.Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Greenlam Industries Limited against Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and granted various applications related to filing documents and time extensions. Crucially, the court directed that summons be issued to the defendant, initiating the formal trial process for the claim of trademark infringement based on the use of similar marks like 'GREENLAND' and 'ZOHA GREENLAND'.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the decision and termination of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences settled three USPTO IPRs (01130, 01132, 01133) and withdrew their pending Director Review requests, ending further proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against Nokia's patent (8036273), allowing Amazon to proceed with its obviousness arguments. The Board found that the combination of prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto plausibly teaches the claimed sub-pixel interpolation methods.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Nokia's patent (7280599) regarding video compression and sub-pixel interpolation. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto, leading to the institution of all 51 challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nokia's video compression patents based on obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for unpatentability. This decision sets a significant precedent in challenging complex technical claims using combined software/hardware disclosures.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.