IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 42 of 159 · 4,764 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on September 17, 2024, rejecting the plaintiff's application to examine its own party expert as a witness in the oral hearing. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sought this examination in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724 against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., arguing that the deadline for its replication on the FRAND counterclaim was insufficient to address the defendants' expert opinion. The court held that the application was filed after the close of the interim proceedings and that the procedure of examining one's own party expert as a witness is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure.
Dexcom International Limited v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This appeal concerned a dispute over European patent EP 2 044 709 B1, which had effect only in Germany. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that while Articles 29 to 32 of the Brussels I recast Regulation apply to UPC proceedings during the transitional period under Article 83 UPCA, they did not require the UPC to decline jurisdiction because the German revocation action and the UPC proceedings did not involve the same parties. However, the Court of Appeal granted Mala's auxiliary request to stay the UPC revocation proceedings pending a final decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the parallel German revocation proceedings.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed orders of the Munich Local Division dated 23 April 2024 that had denied Volkswagen's applications for security for costs in three related patent infringement proceedings involving European Patents EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399, and EP 1 552 669. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, finding that NST had failed to provide sufficiently substantiated information demonstrating it could cover a possible cost order, and that NST's status as an SME did not exempt it from providing security. The Court ordered security in reduced amounts of EUR 100,000 in two cases and EUR 300,000 in the third, payable within three weeks by deposit or EU bank guarantee.
Meril Italy srl, Meril GmbH, Meril Life Science Private Limited v.Respondent
Central Division Paris Seat ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central division (Paris seat) issued on 17 September 2024 concerning the generic procedural applications Nos. App_45333/2024 and 51629/2024 lodged in the proceedings UPC_CFI_189/2024 APPLICANT
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG RESPONDENT Himson Engineering Private Limited PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. P
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Brussels, in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 331 036. The order was issued following an Interim Conference held on 6 September 2024 under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure. The court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, noting willingness on the plaintiff's side and limited willingness on the defendants' side, primarily due to substantial costs already incurred.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The defendant submitted that these suits were not maintainable as they raised issues already subject to a suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
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.