IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 165 of 218 · 6,517 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against Juul Labs International, Inc. at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, but incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor of the patents at issue.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against five European patents owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., but mistakenly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in the statements for revocation. The Court of First Instance rejected Juul Labs' preliminary objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs was not unreasonably prejudiced.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions at the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' in respect of five European patents. The actual registered proprietor of the patents was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were improperly directed. The Court of First Instance rejected the objection and ordered rectification of the defendant's name. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that NJOY intended to sue the registered proprietor, and Juul Labs International was not unreasonably prejudiced. The Court also held that no order for costs would be made in this non-final appellate decision.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 838 002. The claimant (Avago) sued the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for patent infringement, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court ordered that the main infringement action and both revocation counterclaims be heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, rejecting the option of referral to the Central Division since the claimant did not consent.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed five revocation actions against 'Juul Labs, Inc.' before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The actual registered proprietor of the patents at issue was Juul Labs International, Inc., which filed a preliminary objection arguing the actions were inadmissible. The Court of First Instance allowed rectification of the defendant's name, and Juul Labs International, Inc. appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that rectification was appropriate because it was clear from the circumstances that the revocation actions were intended to be directed against the registered proprietor.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Under Armour against Athalonz regarding athletic footwear claims. The Board adopted key claim constructions and found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over the prior art reference 'Won' for several independent claims.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Athalonz, LLC's shoe patent (11,064,760 B2). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's shoe patent (10,674,786), challenging claims 1-8 based on obviousness over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's patent (11,013,291) for athletic footwear. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over prior art reference Kim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully instituted an IPR against The Johns Hopkins University's patent, challenging claims related to anti-PD-1 antibodies for MSI-high cancer. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art anticipated and rendered the claims obvious, leading to a trial institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against The Johns Hopkins University regarding oncology/immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, despite procedural challenges from the Patent Owner.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer therapies using PD-1 blockade. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record, renders several claims unpatentable.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Sitnet's patent 8249932, with the PTAB finding a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'situational network,' setting the stage for trial.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references, particularly Won and Norton.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eleven challenged claims unpatentable. The core finding was that the claimed athletic shoe design was obvious over prior art references (Kim and De Obaldia).
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.