IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 39 of 218 · 6,517 total
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Nokia's video encoding patent (9571833). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly those combining Rusert and Zheng.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed SharkNinja's application to introduce new evidence (FBD 29) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 043 492. The evidence consisted of annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in US proceedings, which SharkNinja argued was relevant to show contradictory positions taken by Dyson regarding claim interpretation. The court held that SharkNinja failed to convincingly demonstrate the relevance of the new evidence and that submissions in other proceedings do not render a party's positions in the present case contradictory.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T and other carriers have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of their IPR challenging a Korean-owned telecom patent. They argue the Board abused discretion by ignoring a Sotera stipulation and misapplying Fintiv factors.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) applications for production orders requiring defendants to disclose source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers in connection with their streaming services. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient need for the requested source code, as the Microsoft Edge source code was publicly accessible and the plaintiffs could obtain it themselves, while for Safari they should rely on Charles Proxy recordings.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring certain defendants to provide information about the design and encoding scheme of video files accessible through their streaming services. The court rejected the application, finding that the requests constituted impermissible fishing expeditions, that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all reasonably available information sources, and that the current state of the proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with such an information order.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, Bridgemaze Group LLC and others
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking information from defendants regarding which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use for their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how video files are encoded on those servers. The court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their own investigative possibilities and that the current stage of proceedings regarding patent interpretation, infringement, and validity did not justify burdening the defendants with the requested information order.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich concerns the assessment of costs for appeal proceedings (APL_8/2024, UPC_CoA_1/2024). The Hanshow entities filed their cost assessment application on June 18, 2024, more than one month after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on May 13, 2024, thereby missing the one-month deadline under Rule 151 RoP. The court rejected both the request for retroactive extension of the deadline under Rule 9.3(a) RoP and the cost assessment application itself, holding that re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 RoP is the lex specialis remedy that takes precedence over a general extension request.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion asking the PTB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, separating them from the public patent file.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR targeting a Korean‑owned LTE patent. They argue the Board misapplied discretionary standards, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and failed to consider domestic economic impacts.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement documents out of the public patent file.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,804,678 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties cite public‑policy reasons for termination.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC opposes Nokia and other carriers' request for Director Review of the Board’s denial to institute an IPR. The owner asserts the petitioners raised new arguments and that the Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the pending 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 filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,571,833.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.
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.