IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 159 · 4,762 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
DexCom, Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/11/2024 APPLICANT 1) DexCom, Inc. 6340 Sequence Drive 92121 - San Diego, CA - US Represented by Anne-Charlotte Le Bihan RESPONDENTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on November 25, 2024, in case UPC_CFI_443/2024 concerning a request for preliminary measures brought by Häfele SE & Co KG against an unnamed defendant. The order set out seven guiding principles addressing procedural independence from ownership disputes, claim interpretation regarding subclaims, the inadmissibility of prosecution files as interpretation material, and the balance-of-interests analysis required for preliminary injunctions. The full operative provisions of the ruling are not visible in the available text excerpt.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns FUJIFILM Corporation's application under Rule 333 RoP to review and set aside a prior order by the Judge-Rapporteur that had rejected FUJIFILM's request to submit a further written pleading in response to new prior use allegations raised by the Kodak defendants in their Rejoinder. The Panel found the request for review admissible but dismissed it on the merits, holding that the Judge-Rapporteur had correctly balanced the risk of delay against the Claimant's interest in further written submissions.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order was issued by the Local Division in Milan in a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent No. EP2145848. The defendant Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur outlined the agenda for the upcoming interim conference, addressing settlement prospects, translation errors in the Italian patent validation, the scope of Himson's revocation counterclaim, Oerlikon's auxiliary requests, the infringement claim and related evidence, ancillary measures, litigation costs, and the organization of the Oral Hearing.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Court decision.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
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.