IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 28 of 218 · 6,517 total
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE & Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. filed an infringement action against Nintendo of Europe AG and Nintendo Co., Ltd. concerning EP2579551, but had erroneously named Defendant 1 as 'Nintendo of Europe AG' instead of 'Nintendo of Europe SE,' the latter being the universal successor. The Court granted the rectification of the defendant's name, finding no unreasonable prejudice since Nintendo of Europe SE had taken over all assets, premises, email addresses, and the VAT number of the former AG. The Court also determined that the date of service on the corrected defendant was deemed effected on 17 October 2024, serving as the starting point for the time-limit to file the Statement of Defence.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) filed an authorized response to Micron’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly upheld YMTC’s eligibility to pursue IPRs and rejected Micron’s Return Mail arguments. The Board is urged to deny Micron’s request for discretionary denial.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against YMTC, arguing the Chinese state‑owned firm is not a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §311 and that the Board should have exercised discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron’s request to overturn the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied. The Board affirmed YMTC’s eligibility as a petitioner and found no RPI issues or grounds for discretionary denial.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D NAND patent, arguing YMTC lacks standing and the Board should have exercised discretionary denial.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted a Director Review of the institution decision in Micron's IPR against Yangtze Memory, staying the proceedings while the Board reconsidered challenges related to foreign sovereign control and RPI disclosure.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Exelixis’s U.S. Pat. 11,298,349 covering oral cabozantinib (L)-malate formulations. The petition alleges anticipation by the earlier Wilson patent and obviousness over Brown, Kubo and Remington, while arguing that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s 8,686,562 patent covering III‑V semiconductor electrical contacts, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition against Micron’s 8,945,996 patent covering 3D NAND memory fabrication, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that PTAB discretion does not apply.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Micron's 3D NAND patent (US 10,872,903). The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over Ahn, Ishikawa, and Fukuzumi prior art and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary exclusions.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge by Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies' patent covering semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for several claims over the prior art reference Usui, while also finding merit in the obviousness arguments.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) successfully petitioned to challenge Micron Technology's patent, leading the Board to institute the IPR. The petitioner argued that prior art disclosed or suggested key elements of flash memory technology. This decision allows YMTC to proceed with challenging claims related to semiconductor device structures.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Micron by Yangtze Memory Technologies because the Petitioner failed to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest (RPIs).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied IPR petitions filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) against Micron. The denial was based not on patentability, but on YMTC's failure to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Micron Technology for patent infringement. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite arguments regarding foreign state actor status and RPI issues.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd (EP 3 197 316)
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3 197 316. The applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., withdrew its application for interim measures one day after filing, and subsequently sought reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid. The court held that Rule 370(9)(b)(i) of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €6,600.00.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European Patent No. 3646825 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (Meril) filed applications requesting the court to approach the European Commission for information about ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the oral hearing. The court rejected both applications as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and oral hearing, and noting that no formal antitrust investigation had been opened.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril GmbH
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 3 646 825 concerning transcatheter heart valve technology. The court found that Meril's Myval transcatheter heart valve and associated delivery and crimping systems infringed Edwards' patent, and ordered recall, destruction, damages of €663,000, and publication of the decision. The court also addressed public interest concerns by creating a mechanism allowing individual patients to request single-use licences for XL-sized Myval devices where the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve is not clinically suitable.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a request filed by the defendants (Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.) in an ongoing patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendants sought to have the court request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) and to reopen the proceedings. The Local Division Munich rejected the request as late-filed and without merit.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits. The Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) was upheld.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of its IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2021 wireless‑location patent. The petition argues the denial misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and relied on a rescinded guidance memo.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems responded to WSOU Investments’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in IPR2025-00188. The petitioner argues the Board properly considered all relevant factors and exercised discretion, so the review should be denied.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
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.