IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 218 · 6,517 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC seeking to revoke European patent EP 3 456 214, which relates to vaporizers/electronic cigarettes, on the grounds of lack of inventive step based on prior art documents 'Pan' and 'Cross'. The defendant filed conditional applications to amend the patent with multiple auxiliary requests. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the grounds for invalidity well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rescheduling an Interim Conference in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2145848. The defendant Himson Engineering Private Limited declared unavailability due to prior professional commitments, and the court rescheduled the conference to the afternoon of the same day and converted it to a video-conference format with the agreement of all parties.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Total Semiconductor's request for discretionary review of an order by the Mannheim Local Division's judge-rapporteur requiring Total Semiconductor to provide €600,000 in security for costs. The central issue was whether a judge-rapporteur has the competence to issue an order on security for costs and deny leave to appeal, or whether such an order must be adopted by a panel. The Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal on this procedural question but expressly excluded the substantive matter of security for costs from the scope of review.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has requested a PTAB Director Review of IPR2025-00242. The Patent Owner, Oncoustics, is limited to a brief response within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on its AI‑driven ultrasound patent. The petitioner claims the Board erred factually and legally by demanding proof beyond the expert testimony that the prior art discloses a single‑frame ultrasound data set.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Oncoustics successfully defended the Board’s decision to deny institution of an IPR filed by Precision Cancer Technologies. The patent owner showed the petitioner failed to prove the primary reference disclosed a single static set of raw RF ultrasound data, and the petitioner’s new arguments were untimely.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Court decision.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the Director Review requests for several IPRs, including the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,181,931, leaving the earlier institution denials in place.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks a Director’s discretionary denial of Abbott’s institution of IPR2025‑00116, arguing the petition lacks particularity, misuses claim constructions, and violates word‑count rules. The Board had previously granted institution of the IPR.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The USPTO denied Abbott Laboratories’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, leaving Miracor Medical’s patent 11,572,879 in place.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00116, arguing the Board’s findings were proper and the Fintiv factors inapplicable.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Abbott Laboratories' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including IPR2025-00116 covering Miracor Medical's patent 11,754,077 B1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review, finding no abuse of discretion in the Director's denial of institution and rejecting new arguments raised for the first time.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,001,879, asserting lack of written‑description support and that the claims are anticipated by Frisen and obvious over Cantor (with Armani). The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Oncoustics’ 330 Patent covering ultrasound‑based machine‑learning classification, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Hope‑Simpson, Nair and Azizi.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of a spatial transcriptomics patent owned by Prognosys/10x Genomics, alleging obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.'s IPR challenge against Oncoustics Inc. was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that prior art processed a 'single static set' of raw RF ultrasound data.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the asserted claims were not obvious or anticipated by the prior art. The Board specifically rejected arguments linking Cantor to spatial analysis in tissue sections.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
United Spirits Limited & Anr. v.Globus Spirits Limited
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Globus Spirits Limited seeking leave to cancel trademark registrations held by United Spirits Limited. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' trademarks were not in use. The court accepted notice from the plaintiffs and directed them to file a reply within four weeks, followed by a rejoinder within two weeks, setting the next hearing for February 24, 2025.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, the claimant in a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation before the Central Division (Paris seat), applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to reduce its damages claim from the originally stated amount to €2 million, citing more accurate evidence. Microsoft opposed, arguing the application fell outside Rule 263, was a litigation tactic to reduce security for costs, and failed to meet the rule's requirements. The Court granted the application, holding that a reduction of damages constitutes a limitation of the claim which must be granted under Rule 263(3) when filed with due explanation and unconditionally, but rejected Suinno's request to reconsider fees already paid.
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.