IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 159 · 4,762 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs in the proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent had already been ordered to provide security of EUR 300,000.00, and Microsoft sought an increase to at least EUR 500,000.00, or alternatively EUR 300,000.00. The respondent requested dismissal or, alternatively, significantly lower security amounts. The Court observed that the request, although framed as one for additional security, actually amounted to a request to modify the existing security by increasing its amount.
Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action brought by Netgear entities against Huawei Technologies concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses two procedural matters: the inclusion of a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the assignment of technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding to this case. Both parties consented to these procedural economy measures, and the court ordered the continuation of existing confidentiality protections.
Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Respondent
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review under Rule 333 RoP of an order granting security for costs of EUR 300,000.00 in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant requested reduction of the security to EUR 100,000.00, citing its subsequent application to reduce the damages claimed. The respondent argued the request was inadmissible and unfounded. The Court addressed the admissibility of the application, clarifying that incorrect citation of legal provisions does not prevent consideration of the motion, and that parties may apply to revoke or vary a security order when factual circumstances change.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal proceeding concerned a request by Syngenta Limited to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25, a German-language document attached to its Statement of Response. Sumi Agro, the opposing party, took no position and left the matter to the Court's discretion. The judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal ruled that the exhibit did not need to be translated, granting Syngenta's request.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has sought a Director Review of the PGR, and Merck has 5 business days to file a brief response without new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,123,035 covering PH20 hyaluronidase mutants. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of the claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.
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.