IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 14 of 218 · 6,517 total
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 404239, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by an exigency in the attorney's family and that the restoration application was filed within the permissible period. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a granted patent should not be refused solely on procedural lapse if the restoration application is timely.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 403793, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by a family exigency involving its attorney and that the restoration application was filed within the prescribed period. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, which refused to grant a patent for 'System for construction of composite U shaped reinforced girders bridge deck' under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants argued that the refusal was arbitrary because the respondent failed to consider their foreign patents and made contradictory findings regarding inventive step.
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
M/s.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works v.M/s.Ganga Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works against the Registrar's decision rejecting its opposition to Ganga Products' trademark application for 'DEVICE OF LORD SHIVA'. The court held that names of Hindu deities are not exclusive and cannot be monopolized, citing established Supreme Court precedents. While dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the appellant to seek cancellation under Section 47 if the mark is eventually registered.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning the correct date of service of a patent infringement claim. The court determined that the statement of claim filed on November 6, 2024, regarding EP 3 764 271, was served on the defendant in Switzerland on November 20, 2024, rather than the November 23, 2024 date automatically recorded by the Case Management System.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 866 051. Hand Held Products requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for an oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025. The Court rejected both the main request for court-ordered interpretation and the alternative request for interpretation at the applicant's cost, but noted that Hand Held Products could privately arrange interpretation at its own expense under Rule 109.4.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Dolby International AB against 15 HP entities regarding European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the HP defendants. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, prompting Dolby to withdraw its action and the HP defendants to withdraw their counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees to both parties.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu, Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Oy
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division against multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc. concerning European Patent EP 3 831 282 B1, which relates to remote monitoring of analyte measurements, particularly glucose levels in diabetes patients. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation, and DexCom submitted auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it invalid as granted and as amended under all auxiliary requests due to added-matter objections under Article 138(1)(c) EPC, and dismissed all of DexCom's infringement claims.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00174 concerning patent 11,184,130. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317 before any merits are decided.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND word‑line contact patent. The petition asserts obviousness over Kim, Park, and Fang references and argues there are no discretionary grounds to deny institution.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motorola’s 5G DMRS patent (U.S. 11,184,130). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness based on 3GPP standards documents TR 38.912 and two R1 technical reports.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 36 claims of Fullthrottle’s ad‑tracking patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Fullthrottle’s ’947 patent on obviousness grounds, citing Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The petition argues no secondary considerations and opposes discretionary denial.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.