IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 159 · 4,764 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
T-Mobile USA's IPR challenge against Aspen Networks regarding VoIP network routing claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically concerning how SIP signaling sequences are maintained across network handoffs.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding European Patent EP 2 043 492. Dyson Technology Limited, the respondent, requested that several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja concerning validity attacks be disregarded as they were allegedly not properly specified in the Statement of Appeal. SharkNinja opposed the request, arguing that the grounds were indeed contained in the Statement of Appeal through references to earlier submissions and specific paragraphs. The text of the order is truncated and does not include the final ruling.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft Corporation's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held the request for discretionary review inadmissible because Suinno had not first requested the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal, as required under Rule 220.2 RoP before a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP can be pursued.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,331,379 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,313,379 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
Ewald Dörken AG has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Schaeffler’s wheel‑bearing coating patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,379 held by K.Mizra LLC. The core challenge asserts that the claimed DRAM controller features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including LaBerge and Bowater.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1. The procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of the fair trial. Therefore, a request for extension of a time period must be denied where the opposing party has already met the correspondent shorter, ordinary time period.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
This is a preliminary order in an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited concerning European Patent EP3977921 B1. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and both parties submitted various procedural applications including requests for communication of information, leave to change claims, dismissal of certain revocation grounds, and security for legal costs. The Court addressed procedural deadlines for further written submissions and preparation of the oral hearing, discussed the allocation of a technically qualified judge, and considered the claimant's application for leave to amend its prayer for relief.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the PTAB post‑grant review. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. §327(b) and related regulations.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,781,148 covering yeast metabolic engineering.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica settled their post‑grant review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,781,148. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petition, terminating the proceeding.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review Request asking the USPTO to overturn the Board’s decision to institute IPR2024-00847 against Amazon. The petition argues the Board erred in combining mutually exclusive video‑coding modes and ignored the term “skip coding mode.”
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00891 covering U.S. Patent No. 11,020,031. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits. The parties also seek termination of related IPRs and a district‑court case.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.
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.