IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 23 of 218 · 6,517 total
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns a request by the defendants for the claimant to provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP and Article 69(4) UPCA in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 346 403. The defendants argued that the claimant, a Korean IP monetization company incorporated in 2024 with limited assets and a low credit rating, posed a risk that any cost order would be unrecoverable. The claimant did not contest the request and agreed to provide security of EUR 112,000, and the court ordered the security to be provided by deposit or bank guarantee by 15 January 2025.
C-Kore Systems Limited v.Novawell
Procedural order from the Paris local division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2265793. The court addressed NOVAWELL's procedural requests to reject an affidavit from a prior seizure operation, to hear witnesses, and to conduct pleadings in French, all of which were dismissed. The court set the value of the case at EUR 1 million and established the timetable for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 17 December 2024.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review against its hyaluronidase patent, arguing filing‑date errors, improper claim construction, and Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a petition to invalidate Halozyme’s ’298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply attacks Halozyme’s reliance on functional language and disclaimed dependent claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s request for Director review after the PTAB instituted a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,018,298 covering modified PH20 polypeptides. Merck argues the eligibility and claim‑construction issues are meritless and that the Fintiv factors favor institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Merck's request for Director review of institution decisions in multiple PGRs, including Halozyme's patent 12,018,298. The denial leaves the Board's institution findings intact.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision, arguing the Board already resolved all substantive issues and that new Fintiv arguments are barred.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPR institution decisions, including IPR2025-00115 concerning patent 11,674,517 owned by Miracor Medical and challenged by Abbott Laboratories. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed protein variants.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB against Halozyme, Inc.'s '298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board granted institution despite challenges based on Written Description and Enablement, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
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 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's VAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over multiple prior art references.
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.Abbott Logistics B.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns an application by DexCom, Inc. under Rules 334(e) and 336 of the Rules of Procedure, seeking to reopen the debate after the oral hearing in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3831282. DexCom sought to introduce a November 6, 2024 decision of the Munich Regional Court concerning the parent patent EP 2,939,158. The Court held the application admissible but dismissed it as not well-grounded, finding the Munich decision concerned a different patent with different features and did not examine validity on the merits.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
Häfele SE & Co KG sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Munich against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 767 151 concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus. The court rejected the application, finding that prior art documents (D8 and D9) raised serious doubts about the validity of the patent, and that the balance of interests weighed against granting interim relief given the pending nullity action and opposition proceedings.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
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.
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.