IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 218 · 6,517 total
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation, owner of European Patent EP4201327 concerning a fluid delivery device (insulin pump), sought a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. alleging that EOFLOW's 'EOPatch' insulin pump infringed its patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) denied the application for provisional measures, finding significant doubts regarding the validity of the patent in light of prior art (US'994), which appeared to disclose all features of claim 1. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s ’714 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under §314(a).
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of SiOnyx’s ’682 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR cancellation of SiOnyx’s 44‑claim image‑sensor patent, arguing that prior‑art references Alie, Baggenstoss, Haddad204 and Park make the claims obvious and that institution should not be denied under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' request to institute an IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent 11,721,714 B2. The Board relied on the Fintiv factors, concluding that the existing parallel ITC and District Court litigation favored denying institution.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify's IPR challenge against DKR Consulting was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited a district court ruling that found all challenged claims invalid under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR against DKR Consulting's patent, citing administrative efficiency because a district court had already found all the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR petition against DKR Consulting, citing a District Court ruling that invalidated all challenged claims under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against SiOnyx, LLC was denied by the PTAB due to significant overlap with parallel district court litigation. The Board exercised its discretion under Fintiv guidance, prioritizing efficiency over the merits of the invalidity arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficient to teach the claimed solar cell structure. This decision validates the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness in photovoltaic technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Collomix GmbH v.Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, and Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning water dosing devices marketed as 'PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät.' The claimant, Collomix GmbH, sought permission to submit a physical example of the accused embodiment after filing the claim. The court granted the request, holding that the Rules of Procedure contain no principle preventing a claimant from submitting evidence for facts alleged in the claim after the claim has been filed.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) that had refused to stay infringement proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance erred by basing its refusal solely on the finding that a final EPO decision could not be expected rapidly, and referred the case back for further consideration of the stay request.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.[Respondent]
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 331 036 B1 for a device treating nighttime breathing problems. The appellants (OrthoApnea and Vivisol) challenged orders of the Court of First Instance in Brussels regarding the admissibility of a new equivalence argument raised by the patent holder after filing its Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal against the primary order was inadmissible, while the appeal against the reassessment order was admissible but had to be rejected, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings concerning EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had issued a preliminary injunction against Magna but exempted its supply obligations for five BMW models. Magna sought rectification, arguing the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model was inadvertently omitted, which the Court of First Instance denied. The Standing Judge of the Court of Appeal granted Magna's renewed application for suspensive effect, suspending the impugned order's effect regarding the 'BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé' model until the competent panel of the Court of Appeal decides on the matter.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488, in which DexCom, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against multiple Abbott entities who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, primarily for reasons of procedural efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
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.