IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 34 of 159 · 4,764 total
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for Samsung and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia's '808 patent, asserting that its skip coding mode is obvious over existing prior art references. The challenge focuses on whether combining zero-motion vector (ZMV) and non-zero motion vector (PNZMV) modes constitutes a predictable combination of known techniques in video compression. This dispute involves complex technical arguments regarding standard-setting technologies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This appeal concerned the determination of which party is the prevailing party under Article 69(1) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of a claim after the defendant submitted an injunction and commitment declaration. The dispute involved European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. The Court of Appeal held that when a defendant commits to comply with the plaintiff's requests after proceedings have been initiated, the plaintiff is generally considered the prevailing party, as the declaration itself implies that the plaintiff's requests have been fulfilled.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
ThermiGen settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Viveve Medical, securing a non‑exclusive license and agreeing to pay royalties. The settlement resolves the 2016 litigation and allows Thermi to continue developing its temperature‑controlled RF platforms for women's intimate health.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in several IPRs involving Greenthread’s patent 10,734,481. The Board found no basis to overturn the earlier rulings.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 regarding CMOS fabrication/doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on numerous prior art references including Onoda and Payne. This challenges the patent's validity in semiconductor device technology.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
BTL Industries successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against InMode Ltd.'s medical device patent (8961511). The Board adopted a specialized skill level for the POSA and preliminarily constructed key terms related to RF energy application in gynecological tissue.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all 58 claims of the patent owner's application. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Edwards, Mosher, Ingle, Ollivier).
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters. In C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2023, the court noted that the Patent Office had submitted a report concerning issues related to inventive steps, subject matter eligibility, and amendment under the Patents Act, 1970.
M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
Embio Limited v.Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Embio Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 249376 granted to Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step. The court examined the arguments regarding prior art and technical advancement but found no illegality or perversity in the grant.
Ube Industries Limited & Anr. v.S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ube Industries Limited, granting a permanent injunction against S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors. for trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'UBE' mark. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated their long-standing use and registration of the distinctive trademark across various industries, despite the defendants claiming prior usage. This judgment reinforces the importance of established goodwill and registered rights in preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 408932, which had been ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees. The appellant argued that the failure was caused because the patent grant notification was sent to an erroneous email address instead of the registered service address. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the cessation was not the fault of the appellant.
Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v.Babu Lal Aggarwal Trading As Modern Namkeen Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'MODERN' (No. 915745) from the register, alleging that the respondent has adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark and trade dress. While granting procedural exemptions to the petitioner, the court proceeded with the main petition by issuing notice to all parties. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing after both sides file their respective replies.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, , TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.,
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
1 1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 In the matter INSULET CORPORATION 100 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720, USA represented by its CEO Jim Holl
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.