IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 218 · 6,517 total
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373, titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' owned by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action, while Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl filed counterclaims for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds of added subject matter, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 0a, with costs allocated 70% to the Claimants/Counterclaimants and 30% to the Defendant.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied for the withdrawal of all claims and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a short extension of time limits until December 27, 2024 for the plaintiff's representative to file the reply to the infringement action and the defense to the nullity counterclaim, based on preliminary substantiation of health-related impairments of the responsible attorney. The plaintiff's representative was ordered to further substantiate the health impairments within 20 days.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning two related proceedings (UPC_CFI_244/2024 and UPC_CFI_609/2024) involving European Patent No. 3 030 471. The court granted a further extension of deadlines for the plaintiff's representative to file a reply to the infringement action and a defense to the counterclaim, based on the health-related incapacity of the responsible attorney. The deadlines were extended from December 23, 2024 to December 27, 2024, subject to further substantiation of the health impairments.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm challenges the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of five IPR petitions on the ground that a newly issued ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively. The company argues the rule conflicts with precedent and statutory limits, and would burden the PTAB and stifle innovation.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has requested Director Review of Welch Allyn’s patent 8,214,007 in IPR2025-00377. The patent owner may file a brief response limited to the raised issues within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The Board denied Verizon Wireless and co‑petitioners’ request for Director Review of an institution denial, finding no statutory basis and rejecting new arguments. The institution denial based on a holistic Fintiv analysis therefore stands.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Verizon and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,540,272.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC filed an authorized response opposing Verizon and other carriers’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 11,540,272. The response asserts the request lacks statutory basis and introduces impermissible new arguments.
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.