IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 159 · 4,764 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
CAN Srl Airxcel Europe v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, to extend the deadlines for filing a preliminary objection and a statement of defense/counterclaim in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant argued that service of the statement of claim at a trade fair was ineffective. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected both extension requests, holding that the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure permits extensions only in exceptional cases, and the defendant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstances.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement action under Rule 265 RoP and sought a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The defendant sought a declaration that the revocation counterclaim had become moot under Rule 360 RoP and also requested a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs following the rejection of an application for interim measures. The applicant SES-imagotag SA was ordered to bear the costs of the respondents (four Hanshow group companies) up to a cap of €200,000. The court assessed the claimed costs through a plausibility check, establishing that detailed hour-by-hour breakdowns are not strictly required and that representation by a team of three lawyers and two patent attorneys is appropriate for proceedings against four group-affiliated companies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_395/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/10/2024 APPLICANTS 1) Abbott Logistics B.V. Postbus 365 8000AJ Zwolle – NL Represented by Christian Dekoninck 2) 3) Abbott Diagnostics GmbH Max-Planck-Ring 2 65205 Wies
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
This is a default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action under Article 37 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff, i-mop GmbH, is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 760 094 B1, which protects a hand-guided floor processing device with a specific joint configuration allowing the floor part to be rotated at least ±45° around a vertical axis. The defendant, ARCORA International GmbH, is a German-domiciled company against whom the infringement claim was directed. The judgment was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß (Rapporteur), legally qualified Judge Dr. Daniel Voß, and legally qualified Judge Mojca Mlakar.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court ruled on a cost determination request concerning appeal costs. The respondents (Hanshow entities) had filed their cost determination request on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the appeal was rejected on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court held that the retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP was inadmissible, as Rule 320 RoP on restitutio in integrum operates as lex specialis and displaces the general extension rule in this context.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as plaintiff suing two related defendants, expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, for patent infringement. The court addressed procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and whether security for costs should be ordered. The decision was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on October 10, 2024.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff and expert e-Commerce GmbH as one of the defendants. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the treatment of multiple defendants in a single action, the filing of counterclaims for patent revocation by individual defendants, and the question of whether security for costs should be ordered. The court held that proceedings against multiple defendants remain formally independent, that an isolated counterclaim for revocation by individual defendants is permissible, and that no security requirement was imposed in this case.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
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.