IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 159 · 4,762 total
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on the alleged misidentification of the Defendant, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. The case proceeded with a Statement of Defense to Revocation filed in December 2023, and an oral hearing was held on 10 September 2024. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including the Court's power to limit a patent under Article 65(3) UPCA, the dispositive principle governing party requests, and claim interpretation as a question of law.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., holder of European Patent EP 2519412 relating to a tire for motor vehicles and a pair of tires for motor vehicles, filed an application for provisional and precautionary measures against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (China) and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (Germany) ahead of the EICMA international motorcycle exhibition (November 5-10, 2024), alleging that the defendants would exhibit infringing products. The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction but invited Pirelli to limit its request to seizure, delivery of infringing goods, and procedural costs. Pirelli accordingly narrowed its application, and the Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 212(2) given the extreme urgency.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 504 991 B1, brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. The decision addresses the legal framework for evaluating inventive step under Article 56 EPC, emphasizing the objective approach, the role of the person skilled in the art, and the relevance of the state of the art. The Court also addressed procedural principles under the front-loaded system of UPC proceedings, including the obligation of parties to set out their full case early and the possibility of substantiating arguments in reply submissions.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed a request for provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. (Helios) and CCPIT in connection with European Patent EP 3519207, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' ahead of the EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan. Pirelli alleged that Helios's HA-51R and HA-51F tires reproduced all features of claim 1 of EP207 and sought ex parte injunction, seizure, and provisional costs. The Court declined to grant the ex parte injunction and invited Pirelli to either limit its request to seizure, delivery of goods, and costs, or withdraw entirely; Pirelli opted to limit its request accordingly.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs' order refusing to grant a patent application (No. 201947017337). The appellant subsequently sought permission from the High Court to withdraw the appeal.
Ms Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.The Commissioner Of Customs Appeals & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order sets the stage for a complex dispute concerning Intellectual Property Rights enforcement at customs. The petitioner has raised several critical questions, including whether protection can be granted without adhering strictly to the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, and whether failure to mention specific goods in import documents constitutes misdeclaration. The court has allowed procedural applications and scheduled the main hearing for February 12, 2025.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This case concerned an action for patent infringement brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European Patent EP2145848. The defendant had acknowledged the validity of the patent and the infringement without raising any defense. The court addressed several procedural and substantive issues, including the suspension of proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, the discretionary nature of permanent injunctions under Article 63(1) UPCA, penalty payments under Article 63(2) UPCA, publication of decisions under Article 80 UPCA, moral damages under Article 68(3a) UPCA, and provisional damages under Rule 119 RoP.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for a plant‑utility patent, arguing the Board created an improper bright‑line rule that shields patents based on secret parent lines. The petition cites statutory and policy grounds, seeking Director review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya Ramu v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This procedural order concerns an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to the respondent's appeal response in a patent infringement appeal. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 866 051, where the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) had issued an interim injunction on August 27, 2024 against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10. Scandit sought leave to file a reply to address what it characterized as new arguments raised by Hand Held Products regarding features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 and to introduce additional prior art.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg on 1 November 2024 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP4108782 held by Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts from the discovery process of a parallel US proceeding. The requested materials included fourteen documents from Harvard's discovery production, twenty-one documents from 10x Genomics' discovery production, and transcripts of depositions of various personnel from Harvard, 10x Genomics, and Bio-Techne.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
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.