IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 27 of 159 · 4,762 total
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that the respondents copied the entire content of his two Marathi language books, 'Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk' and 'Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz'kklu'. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of these allegedly duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by the plaintiff, finding prima facie no merit in his case.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This procedural order concerns the joinder of a main infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Local Division Brussels. Cretes NV brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, while Hyler BV filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of two European patents (EP 3 993 602 and EP 4 284 152) held by Cretes NV. The court ordered the joint treatment of both proceedings for reasons of efficiency, legal certainty, and at the parties' request, and directed the Rapporteur Judge to take steps for the appointment of a technically qualified judge.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that defendants had infringed his copyrights by copying the content of two Marathi language books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale and publication of these alleged duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal, finding prima facie no merit in the plaintiff's case regarding the grant of temporary relief.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order concerning a patent infringement action related to European Patent EP4108782 owned by Harvard College. The plaintiffs (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the content of exhibit BP 34, consisting of a license agreement and related agreements containing highly sensitive business information, be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only to the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The plaintiffs argued that the information constitutes trade secrets under Article 58 and Article 24(1)(a) of the relevant agreement and EU Directive 2016/943, and noted that the same documents were subject to equivalent restrictions in parallel US proceedings before the District of Delaware.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application to annul a decision of the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. After the EPO rectified the contested decision, the Court closed the case pursuant to R. 91.2 RoP without ordering reimbursement of the court fee. Qualcomm subsequently sought full or partial reimbursement of the fee, arguing it prevailed in the proceeding and that the case was handled by a single judge before closure of the written procedure. The Court addressed the legal framework governing fee reimbursement under R. 91.2, R. 370.9, and R. 370.11 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully challenged Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the PTAB finding all 22 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
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.